King's Sister Queen of Dissent: Marguerite of Navarre (1492-1549) and her Evangelical Network, 2-Volume Set

King’s Sister – Queen of Dissent

Studies in Medieval and Reformation Traditions Edited by

Andrew Colin Gow Edmonton, Alberta In cooperation with

Thomas A. Brady, Jr., Berkeley, California Sylvia Brown, Edmonton, Alberta Berndt Hamm, Erlangen Johannes Heil, Heidelberg Susan C. Karant-Nunn, Tucson, Arizona Martin Kaufhold, Augsburg Jürgen Miethke, Heidelberg M. E. H. Nicolette Mout, Leiden Founding Editor

Heiko A. Oberman †

VOLUME 139/1

King’s Sister – Queen of Dissent Marguerite of Navarre (1492–1549) and her Evangelical Network Volume 1

By

Jonathan A. Reid

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2009

Cover illustration: Christ carrying the cross on the way to Calvary with Henri II d’Albert, king of Navarre, Marguerite d’Angoulême, queen of Navarre, and their court following in procession. Initiatoire instruction en la religion chrestienne pour les enffans, Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal Rés. MS 5096, fol. 1v (cliché Bibliothèque nationale de France). This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Reid, Jonathan A. King’s sister—queen of dissent : Marguerite of Navarre (1492–1549) and her evangelical network / by Jonathan A. Reid. p. cm. — (Studies in medieval and reformation traditions, ISSN 1573-4188 ; 139) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-90-04-17497-9 (acid-free paper) 1. Marguerite, Queen, consort of Henry II, King of Navarre, 1492–1549. 2. Reformation—France—History. 3. Evangelicalism—France—History. 4. Queens— Navarre (Kingdom)—Biography. I. Title. II. Title: Marguerite of Navarre (1492–1549) and her evangelical network. III. Series. DC112.M2R45 2009 946’.52042092—dc22 [B] 2009010200

ISSN 1573-4188 ISBN 978 90 04 17760 4 (volume 1) ISBN 978 90 04 17761 1 (volume 2) ISBN 978 90 04 17497 9 (set) Copyright 2009 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands

In memoriam Heiko Augustinus Oberman († 22.IV.2001)

Suscepit me paterne ille homo dei et peregrinationem meam . . . dilexit. —St. Augustine, Confessions, V.XIII

CONTENTS

VOLUME 1

List of Tables ....................................................................................... Acknowledgements ............................................................................ Abbreviations and Short Titles ........................................................

xi xiii xvii

Introduction. Resolving a Riddle: Marguerite of Navarre and the Early French Reformation ............................................. A Twofold Riddle .......................................................................... French Reformation Historiography: The “Magnificent Anarchy” ..................................................................................... Structure of Study ..........................................................................

4 13

Chapter One. The Early Reformation in France ....................... Evangelical Growth ....................................................................... The Crisis of Evangelicalism ........................................................ The Reformed Ascendancy ..........................................................

17 18 23 28

Chapter Two. Mapping the Navarrian Network ........................ Contemporary Signposts .............................................................. Sources for Reconstructing the Navarrian Network ................ Dramatis Personae .........................................................................

35 38 47 56

Chapter Three. The Valois Trinity Takes Power: New Regime and Church Reform, 1515–1521 ......................... The Royal Trinity ........................................................................... Marguerite: The Trinity’s Minor Partner and Her New Powers ......................................................................................... Marguerite’s Support of Francis’s Rule: Foreign Affairs and the Concordat .................................................................... The Royal Family’s Religion and Late Medieval Reform ........ Leading Characteristics of Marguerite’s Religion .....................

1 2

85 85 87 97 103 107

viii

contents

Chapter Four. The Fabrist Background to the Navarrian Network ........................................................................ “Ante illustrationem Evangelii:” Evangelical Self-awareness ............................................................................ The Fabrists’ Career ....................................................................... From “Barbarian Captivity” to the “Babylonian Captivity:” The Restoration of Learning .................................................... Before Meaux: A Season of Growth and Strife ........................ Prepared but not Destined for Meaux .......................................

122 126 139

Chapter Five. The Meaux Experiment I: From Clerical Reform to Evangelical Renewal, 1518–1523 ............................. Clerical Reform to 1521 ............................................................... Evangelical Renewal, 1521–1523 .................................................

151 153 169

Chapter Six. The Meaux Experiment II: Model for National Reform, 1521–1523 ....................................................... Briçonnet’s ‘Band’ and ‘Captain’ Marguerite ............................. A Reform Program Rebuffed, Fall 1522 .................................... The Cold War Heats Up, May–December 1523 ....................... The Bourges Breakout, November 1523–February 1524 ........

181 186 196 213 241

115 115 119

Chapter Seven. From Meaux to Madrid: The Network Knits Together, 1524–1526 ........................................................... Birth of the Network: An International “Fraternal Alliance” ...................................................................................... The French Evangelical Reform Program and the German Connection ................................................................. The Invention of the French Evangelical Press in 1525 .......... Leadership and Strategy—Doctrine and Purpose ....................

260 274 293

Chapter Eight. Resurrecting King and Reform, 1525–1530 ....................................................................................... The King in Captivity and Reform in Exile, 1525–1526 ......... Reform Held Hostage, 1526–1530 ..............................................

315 315 345

249 254

contents

ix

VOLUME 2

Chapter Nine. Legitimating the Evangelical Movement, 1531–1539 ....................................................................................... Prologues to the Paris Campaign, 1531–1534 .......................... Evangelical Buildup and Breakdown in Paris, 1533–1535 ..... An Improbable Religious Concord, 1533–1536 .......................

379 383 417 436

Chapter Ten. The ‘Sons of Apollo’ in the Service of Christ ..... Poets as Religious Leaders ........................................................... Polemics and Piety ........................................................................

447 458 470

Chapter Eleven. Secret Diplomacy and Religious Dissimulation, 1540–1549 ............................................................ “The Emperor is Hypocrisy and the Pope the Devil”: Evangelical Diplomacy at the Court of Francis I, 1540–1547 .................................................................................. Building Evangelical Institutions: Claude Baduel and Gérard Roussel .......................................................................... The Dynamics of Separation: The Navarrian Network and Calvin ..................................................................................

497

497 516 550

Conclusion. Towards the Wars of Religion ................................

565

Appendix A. Additions and Corrections to the Correspondence of Marguerite of Navarre ............................... Additions and Corrections ........................................................... Index: Changes to Letter Numbers .............................................

575 577 638

Appendix B. Books Related to the Navarrian Network ........... I. A Checklist of Books Related to the Navarrian Network ................................................................................... II. Manuscript Books of the Navarrian Network ................... III. The Navarrian Network’s Reading List 1524 .....................

641 645 714 719

x

contents

Bibliography ........................................................................................ Manuscript Sources ....................................................................... The Correspondence of Marguerite of Navarre: Manuscript and Printed Sources ............................................ Printed Primary Sources and Secondary Literature ................

723 723 724 731

Index ....................................................................................................

771

LIST OF TABLES

1. Royal Family Household Accounts ............................................ 2. Chronology of Marguerite’s Correspondence with Briçonnet ........................................................................................ 3. Verdicts Rendered Against the Alençon Forty, September 1534 ............................................................................. 4. The Literary Oeuvre of the “Sons of Apollo” ........................... 5. Calvin’s Controversialist Works to 1550 ...................................

90 184 396 451 551

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This book would not have appeared without the generous support of many people and institutions. I am delighted to express my gratitude to them all. First formulated as a doctoral dissertation in the Division for Late Medieval and Reformation Studies at the University of Arizona, this study has been revised and completed by me while I have served in the Department of History at East Carolina University. For research grants, I thank the Division for Late Medieval and Reformation Studies at the University of Arizona, the US government Fulbright-Hays Commission, and the French government Bourse Chateaubriand. How much more valuable their aid now appears during the present financial crisis. So too, my department chair, Mike Palmer, and colleagues at East Carolina University have my thanks for generously allowing me a semester teaching-release towards completion of the manuscript. The librarians—rarely are they praised enough—of the Bibliothèque de la Société de l’Histoire du Protestantisme Français, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, Bibliothèque du Saulchoir, Bibliothèque Mazarine, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, and Institut Protestant de Théologie provided exemplary professional service during my stay in Paris. To Mme Beauvais, Mme Dos Santos, and the staff at the BSHPF I give particularly warm thanks for years of special care. My hearty thanks go to Andrew Gow for accepting this study into the Studies in Medieval and Reformation Traditions series. I have especially appreciated his nurturing guidance. The editors at Brill too have given careful attention to production, for which I am most grateful to them. Routledge Press kindly granted permission to incorporate as chapter 1 a revised version of my contribution on “France” in The Reformation World, edited by Andrew Pettegree. I owe debts of thanks to several networks (!), both formal and casual, of individuals that have sustained me and this study over the years. For offering research materials, opportunities to present preliminary findings, probing questions, and helpful critiques, I am grateful to Robert Albro, Paul Ayris, Philip Benedict, Thomas A. Brady, Jr., Reinhard Bodenmann, Jennifer Britnell, Marianne Carbonnier-Burkhard, James Carley, Philippe Chareyre, Bernard Cottret, Mark Crane, James K. Farge, André Godin, Francis Higman, Jean-Marie Le Gall, Mary McKinley,

xiv

acknowledgements

Myra Orth (†), Régine Reynolds-Cornell, and Anne Jacobson Schutte. I also appreciate the many auditors at conferences and seminars—too numerous to mention and not all known to me by name—whose questions and comments over the years have helped me sharpen the focus of this study. Membership in the republic of letters is a special privilege. The notes to this study attest to my debt to the work of a great many other of its members, living and dead. My colleagues in the Division at Arizona helped guide this study in its earliest stages of development. Luise Betterton gave her warm support and expert administrative assistance all along the way. Cheers Luise. My dissertation committee readers, Alan Bernstein, Donald Weinstein, and Susan Karant-Nunn, have my enduring gratitude for their careful guidance, and especially for their sacrificial efforts in the trying circumstances before the defense. I thank Alan and Don in particular for their careful revision of chapters 2 through 7. Colleagues in the Division, Nicole Kuropka and John Frymire, helpfully critiqued early versions of several chapters. Most recently, another friend and Division veteran, Mike Bruening, and two wonderful colleagues in North Carolina, Charles Fantazzi and John Headley, improved the expanded drafts with their careful editing. Three special friends and mentors have my particular gratitude. William Kemp has repeatedly shared his rich expertise and research notes on early sixteenth-century French religious books and print culture. He also provided valuable critiques of appendix B. In addition to giving the incisive comments that guided the revision of this study from dissertation to book, Andrew Pettegree has over long years graced me with warm encouragement, delightful hospitality (thank you too Jane), and many research opportunities. Since first welcoming me to his research seminar in Paris and guiding my first steps in the libraries, Bernard Roussel has played a major role in my development as a scholar of the Reformation in France through the example of his penetrating and exacting scholarship and his sage guidance of my studies. He and his wife Jacqueline have also showered my family and me with kindness and practical help. I deeply esteem their great humanity and I value our long years of friendship. If after so much sage advice, generous assistance, and selfless guidance from all these good folk aught is amiss or questionable still, the my fault is mine alone. Through these years my family has given unstinting support. My parents, Dolores and Malcolm Reid, have lovingly provided much practical

acknowledgements

xv

aid which helped this project move forward. To my wife Laura, who has cheerily given and endured the most, and our boys, Aedan, Torin, and Gavin, I return deep, loving thanks—small amends, I know—for the long hours when I was near yet far away with mistress Marguerite and her band. Finally, I offer this book to my ‘Doktormutter,’ Totie Oberman, in fond memory of my Doktorvater, Heiko Oberman. Words fail me. Long, scintillating seminars nights “at his feet” in Tucson and Ekeby, the open embrace of the Oberman family home, the effect of reading his inspired scholarship, the rivers of red ink lavished on my work, his expressive gestures and infectious joy and laughter, his deep care as a mentor of mind, body, and soul . . . memories of all that he was and all that he did to shape me flood back in disorder. Many others, I know, cherish like remembrances of Heiko. For my part, I shall let St. Augustine speak for me. During all those years of being his student to his very last days and beyond he has been for me a precious blessing.

ABBREVIATIONS AND SHORT TITLES

AD AK

Allen

AN ARG BHR BM BnF BPF Briçonnet, Corr.

Brief Oekolampads

BSHPF Bucer, Corr.

CAF

Archives départementales Amerbach, Basilius et al. Die Amerbachkorrespondenz. 7 vols. Ed. Alfred Hartmann et al. Basel: Verlag der Universitätsbibliothek, 1942–1967. Erasmus, Desiderius. Opus Epistolarum Des. Erasmi Roterodami. 12 vols. Ed. P. S. Allen et al. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1906–1958. Archives Nationales, Paris. Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte / Archive for Reformation History. Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance. Bibliothèque municipale. Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris. Bibliothèque de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français, Paris. Briçonnet, Guillaume and Marguerite d’Angoulême. Correspondance (1521–1524). 2 vols. Ed. Christine Martineau and Michel Veissière with Henry Heller. THR 141 and 173. Geneva: Droz, 1975 and 1979. Oecolampadius, Johannes. Brief und Akten zum Leben Oekolampads. 2 vols. Ed. Ernst Staehelin. Quellen und Forschungen zur Reformationsgeschichte 10 and 19. Leipzig: M. Heinsius Nachfolger, Eger, and Sievers, 1927 and 1934. Bulletin de la Société de l’Histoire du Protestantisme Français. Bucer, Martin. Correspondance de Martin Bucer. 6 vols. to date. Ed. Jean Rott et al. Martini Buceri Opera Omnia, ser. 3. Leiden: Brill, 1979–. Catalogue des actes de François Ier. 10 vols. Collection des Ordonnances des Rois de France. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1887–1908.

xviii CE

abbreviations and short titles

Contemporaries of Erasmus: A Biographical Register of the Renaissance and Reformation. 3 vols. Ed. Peter G. Bietenholz. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1987. Clémencet, Clémencet, Suzanne and Michel François, eds. Parlement Lettres reçues et envoyées par le Parlement de Paris, 1376–1596: Inventaire analytique. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1961. Clerval, Registres Clerval, Jules-Alexandre, ed. Registres des procèsverbaux de la Faculté de Théologie de Paris, de 1505 à 1523. Archives de l’histoire religieuse de la France. Paris: Lecoffre and Gabalda, 1917. CO Calvin, John. Ioannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia. 59 vols. Ed. G. Baum, E. Cunitz, and E. Reuss. Corpus Reformatorum 29–87. Braunschweig: Schwetschke, 1863–1900. d’Argentré, Du Plessis d’Argentré, Charles, ed. Collectio judiciorum de novis erroribus. 3 vols. Paris, Collectio 1728. Reprint, Brussels: Culture et Civilisation, judiciorum 1963. Droz, Chemins Droz, Eugénie, ed. Chemins de l’hérésie: Textes et documents. 4 vols. Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1970– 1976. F.fr. Fonds français, BnF. Farge, Biographical Farge, James K. Biographical Register of Paris DocRegister tors of Theology, 1500–1536. Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies: Subsidia Mediaevalia 10. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1980. Farge, Orthodoxy Farge, James K. Orthodoxy and Reform in Early Reformation France: The Faculty of Theology of Paris, 1500 –1543. SMRT 32. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1985. Farge, Registre 1 Farge, James K., ed. Registre des procès-verbaux de la Faculté de théologie de l’Université de Paris, de janvier 1524 à novembre 1533. Paris: Aux Amateurs de Livres, 1990.

abbreviations and short titles Farge, Registre 2

xix

Farge, James K., ed. Registre des conclusions de la Faculté de théologie de l’Université de Paris: Tome II, du 26 novembre 1533 au 1er mars 1550. Paris: Klincksieck, 1994. Génin 1 Génin, F., ed. Lettres de Marguerite d’Angoulême, sœur de Français I, reine de Navarre. Paris: Renouard, 1841. Génin 2 Génin, F., ed. Nouvelles lettres de la reine de Navarre, adressées au roi François Ier, son frère. Paris: Renouard, 1842. Herminjard Herminjard, A.-L., ed. Correspondance des réformateurs dans les pays de langue française. 9 vols. Geneva: H. Georg / Paris: Michel Levy, 1866–1897. Higman, Piety Higman, Francis M. Piety and the People: Religious Printing in French, 1511–1551. St. Andrews Studies in Reformation History. Aldershot: Scolar Press, 1996. Imbart, Origines Imbart de la Tour, Pierre. Les origines de la Réforme. 4 vols. Paris, 1905–1935. Jourda, Marguerite Jourda, Pierre. Marguerite d’Angoulême, duchesse d’Alençon, reine de Navarre (1492–1549): Étude biographique et littéraire. 2 vols. Bibliothèque Littéraire de la Renaissance, new ser., no. 19. Paris: Champion, 1930. Jourda, Répertoire Jourda, Pierre. Répertoire analytique et chronologique de la correspondance de Marguerite d’Angoulême, duchesse d’Alençon, reine de Navarre (1492–1549). Paris: Champion, 1930. Knecht, Renaissance Knecht, R. J. Renaissance Warrior and Patron: Warrior The Reign of Francis I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. La Ferrière-Percy, La Ferrière-Percy, Hector Artaud, comte de. Livre de dépenses Marguerite d’Angoulême, sœur de François Ier: Son livre de dépenses (1540 –1549); Étude sur ses dernières années. Paris: Aubry, 1862. Lefranc, Comptes Lefranc, Abel and Jacques Boulenger, eds. Comptes de Louise de Savoie (1515, 1522) et de Marguerite d’Angoulême (1512, 1517, 1524, 1529, 1539). Paris: Honoré Champion, 1905.

xx

abbreviations and short titles

Letters and Papers

l.t. Marot, OP

Moreau

N.a.fr. n.s.

Ordonnances Quadroni, Farel corr.

Saulnier 1954

Saulnier 1959

Saulnier 1964

Brewer, John Sherren, James Gairdner, and Robert Henry Brodie, eds. Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII, preserved in the Public Record Office, the British Museum and elsewhere in England. 21 vols. London, 1862–1910; 2nd ed., 22 vols., London, 1920–1932. livres tournois. Marot, Clément. Œuvres poétiques. Ed. Gérard Defaux. 2 vols. Paris: Classiques Garnier 1996 [1990] and 1993. Moreau, Brigitte et al. Inventaire chronologique des éditions parisiennes du XVIe siècle (d’après les manuscrits de Philippe Renouard). 5 vols. to date covering 1500–1540. Paris: Service des travaux historiques de la ville de Paris, 1972–. Nouvelles acquisitions françaises, BnF. new style, indicates that the date falls in the indicated calendar year. The official year in France was calculated from Easter to Easter. Ordonnances des rois de France: règne de François Ier. 9 vols. to date. Paris, 1902–. Quadroni, Dominique. “Répertoire de la correspondance de Farel.” In Actes du colloque Guillaume Farel, Neuchâtel 29 septembre–1er octobre 1980, 2 vols., ed. Pierre Barthel, Rémy Scheurer, and Richard Stauffer, vol. 2, 3–104. Cahiers de la Revue de théologie et de philosophie 9, 1 and 2 (1983). Saulnier, V.-L. “Une épître inconnue de François Ier à Marguerite de Navarre.” Bulletin du bibliophile et du bibliothécaire (1954): 176–186. Saulnier, V.-L. “Martin Pontus et Marguerite de Navarre: La réforme lyonnaise et les sources de l’Heptaméron.” BHR 21 (1959): 577–594. Saulnier, V.-L. “Maurice Scève et Marguerite de Navarre: A propos de poésies apocryphes.” Bulletin de l’association Guillaume Budé, 4th ser., 1 (1964): 111–115.

abbreviations and short titles Saulnier 1970

Saulnier 1971

Saulnier 1972

Saulnier 1973

Saulnier 1974 A

Saulnier 1974 B

Saulnier 1975 A

Saulnier 1975 B

Saulnier 1975 C

xxi

Saulnier, V.-L. “Marguerite de Navarre et le Baron de Jarnac: d’après une correspondance inédite de la reine.” In De Jean Lemaire de Belges à Jean Giraudoux: Mélanges d’histoire et de critique littéraire offerts à Pierre Jourda, 93–109. Paris: Nizet, 1970. Saulnier, V.-L. “La correspondance de Marguerite de Navarre: Complément au répertoire.” BHR 33 (1971): 571–604. Saulnier, V.-L. “Recherches sur la correspondance de Marguerite de Navarre.” BHR 34 (1972): 283– 336. Saulnier, V.-L. “Marguerite loin du roi blessé: Sur la correspondance de Marguerite d’Angoulême aux lendemains de Pavie.” In Missions de démarches de la critique: Mélanges offerts au Professeur J. A. Vier, 435–453. Paris: Klincksieck, 1973. Saulnier, V.-L. “Marguerite de Navarre en ses derniers temps: Sur des lettres de 1547–1549.” BHR 36 (1974): 533–572. Saulnier, V.-L. “Troubles au couvent de Tarascon (Marguerite de Navarre, Guillaume du Maine, Claude de Bectoz et Denys Faucher).” In French Renaissance Studies in Honor of Isidore Silver, ed. Frieda S. Brown, 309–317. Special issue of the Kentucky Romance Quarterly 21 (1974), Supplement 2. Saulnier, V.-L. “Marguerite de Navarre, Catherine de Médicis et les Psaumes de Marot: Autour de la lettre dite de Villemadon.” BHR 37 (1975): 349–376. Saulnier, V.-L. “Le parti Du Bellay devant l’affaire de Nicolas Cop: Ou de quelques fonctions du silence.” In Actes du colloque Renaissance-classicisme du Maine (1971), 19–34. Paris: Nizet, 1975. Saulnier, V.-L. “Sur des lettres de Marguerite d’Angoulême aux temps d’Espagne.” Travaux de linguistique et de littérature 13 (1975): 31–45.

xxii Saulnier 1976

Saulnier 1977

Saulnier 1980

Scheurer

SCJ SMRT

THR TLF WA

WA Br

ZW

abbreviations and short titles Saulnier, V.-L. “Intrigues pour un évêché: Marguerite de Navarre et le siège de Sarlat (1530).” Kwartalnik Neofilologiczny (1976): 208–216. Saulnier, V.-L. “Marguerite de Navarre aux temps de Briçonnet: Étude de la correspondance générale (1521–1522).” BHR 39 (1977): 437–478; 40 (1978): 7–47 and 193–237. Saulnier, V.-L. “Marguerite de Navarre, Vittoria Colonna et quelques autres amis italiens de 1540.” In Mélanges à la mémoire de Franco Simone: France et Italie dans la culture européenne; Vol. 1. Moyen Age et Renaissance, 281–295. Geneva: Slatkine, 1980. Du Bellay, Jean. Correspondance du Cardinal Jean Du Bellay. Ed. Rémy Scheurer. 2 vols. Paris: Klincksieck, 1969 and 1973. Sixteenth Century Journal. Studies in Medieval and Reformation Traditions: History, Culture, Religion, Ideas (formerly, Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought). Travaux d’Humanisme et Renaissance. Textes Littéraires Français. Luther, Martin. D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe, 61 vols. Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1883–1983. Luther, Martin. D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe, Briefwechsel, 18 vols. Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1930–1985. Zwingli, Ulrich. Huldreich Zwinglis sämtliche Werke. 14 vols. Ed. Emil Egli et al. Corpus Reformatorum 88–101. Berlin: Schwetschke, 1905—Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1991.

INTRODUCTION

RESOLVING A RIDDLE: MARGUERITE OF NAVARRE AND THE EARLY FRENCH REFORMATION

Individualism is the first law of our Reformation from its very beginning.1 —Pierre Imbart de la Tour, Les origines de la Réforme (1914) A long period of magnificent religious anarchy preceded the age of servitude.2 —Lucien Febvre, “Une question mal posée: les origines de la Réforme française et le problème des causes de la Réforme” (1929) The first trait one should insist on: her uncertainty . . . Marguerite could only have presented a consistent character from her entry into the world until her death if she had been endowed with a masculine vitality, which she did not have, or which she had rarely; brief flare-ups of resolution that burned out as quickly as they were sparked. She never knew how to ground herself, to fix on a line of conduct and stick to it.3 —Pierre Jourda, Marguerite d’Angoulême, duchesse d’Alençon, reine de Navarre (1930)

1 “L’individualisme est d’abord la loi de notre Réforme à ses débuts.” Imbart de la Tour, Origines 3, 416. 2 Speaking of the pre-confessional era of the Reformation before “un catholicisme” confronted “deux ou trois ‘protestantismes,’” Lucien Febvre wrote famously that “une longue période de magnifique anarchie religieuse a précédé les temps de servitude,” in “Une question mal posée: les origines de la Réforme Française et le problème des causes de la Réforme,” Revue historique 161 (1929); reprinted as a chapter in Au cœur religieux du XVIe siècle, 2nd ed. (Paris: École Pratique des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, 1983 [1951]), 7–95; 91. 3 “Premier trait sur lequel il convient d’insister: l’incertitude, l’incapacité à se fixer . . . elle n’eût présenté un caractère identique à soi-même, de son entrée dans le monde à sa mort, qu’à la condition d’être pourvue d’une énergie masculine qu’elle n’avait pas, ou qu’elle eut rarement, brèves flambées de la volonté aussi vite éteintes qu’allumées. Elle n’a jamais su se fixer, adopter une ligne de conduite et s’y tenir.” Pierre Jourda, “Conclusion: Le caractère et les idées de Marguerite de Navarre,” Marguerite 2, 1007–1082; 1007.

2

resolving a riddle A Twofold Riddle

France had a renaissance before the middle of the sixteenth century, but did it have a reformation?4 Judging by the standard of the German, Danish, Swedish, Swiss, or English Reformations, which had succeeded in establishing ‘Protestant’ churches and polities by that date, the answer is no. Only after 1555, as part of a Europe-wide, second ‘Reformed’ wave of the Reformation, did a minority dissident church rapidly take shape and spark thirty-six years of civil war. Scholars have accordingly examined the preceding period for the origins or genesis of the dynamic French Reformed movement of the mid-century. In light of that trajectory, it is ironic that the two great leaders of the second generation Reformation conflict, John Calvin and Ignatius Loyola, passed formative periods in their careers during the early 1530s in a land where the ‘first Reformation’ would seem to have been making little impact. The histories of Marguerite of Navarre and of the Reformation in France before John Calvin remain unsolved riddles. Because Marguerite protected many religious dissenters, including Calvin for a time, these riddles are entwined; so too will be their resolution. Those who have written the principal studies on Marguerite’s life, such as Pierre Jourda, and on the ‘origins’ of the French Reformation, such as Pierre Imbart de la Tour and Lucien Febvre, have either left their subjects as they claim to have found them—a muddle of contradictions—or have credited their subjects with a coherence that amounts to an irreducible religious individuality. Measuring against the clear visions of the magisterial reformers and the well-structured religious programs of the confessional age, historians have made “formlessness” in doctrine and a resulting “inconsistency” in action the leitmotifs of their accounts of these two subjects. This study will attempt to address the supposed contradiction, at least in its classic formulation by Pierre Jourda, of Marguerite’s deep engagement with Protestant doctrine and her failure to promote it in a concerted reform program. Most scholars have concentrated on

4 The literature on the Renaissance in France is substantial. For masterful overviews of its literary side, see Gilbert Gadoffre, La révolution culturelle dans la France des humanistes: Guillaume Budé et François Ier, Titre Courant 8 (Geneva: Droz, 1997) and Marc Fumaroli, L’âge de l’éloquence: rhétorique et “res literaria” de la Renaissance au seuil de l’époque classique (Geneva: Droz, 1980; paperback repr. Paris: Albin Michel, 1994).

marguerite of navarre & the french reformation

3

ferreting out Marguerite’s religious identity by analyzing doctrinal propositions in her poetry and prose. Interpreters have come to widely divergent conclusions. In 1930, Pierre Jourda attempted to settle the debate by adding the study of her deeds to the inquiry into her writings. As will be argued below, he managed to muddy the picture completely by projecting his own incomprehension onto her and interpreting it as her “inconsistency,” which he concluded resulted from a lack of “masculine vitality.” While Jourda was in a sense on the right track—the solution to the riddle of her religion does lie in retracing her steps—he frequently trampled over or completely misinterpreted that which he was trying to recover. When reexamining Marguerite’s dossier, it quickly becomes apparent that Jourda had a highly selective reading of the sources about her life. There is clear evidence that she was far more than (as most scholars bill her) a kind-hearted ‘protectress’ of heterodox individuals. She shows signs of having been an active leader in a broad network of evangelicals working for the religious renewal of France.5 When one turns to any history of this period, one finds her connected to all the major evangelical figures—including Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples, Clément Marot, and François Rabelais—who are credited with marking their age. In their own day they were recognized as the leading proponents of a vision of religious renewal that dissented from the established doctrine, practices, and reform programs of the late medieval church. However, their collective endeavor has been largely forgotten.6 Indeed, scholars deny that the Reformation in France prior to Calvin had an identity, unity, or leadership. Rather, Marguerite and these others have been seen as the early French Reformation in microcosm: the diversity of their ‘religious sensibilities’ reflected the general state of religious ‘anarchy’ and, furthermore, their mystical self-absorption or timidity prevented them both from giving dissent a clear voice and from organizing it either against the established church or into a new church. Recovering and interpreting the deeds and beliefs7 of Marguerite as well as those

5 See chapter 2, especially at note 1, for discussion of the terms network and evangelical. 6 Fortunately, they have not been completely ignored as a group. One subset—the literary figures in the network—have already been identified by Gérard Defaux as actively engaged in a common agenda of promoting evangelical doctrine. For discussion of this coterie see chapter 10 especially at note 18. 7 Abel Lefranc wrote of Marguerite’s ideas (idées). Lucien Febvre preferred the term “sensibilités religieuses,” which translates inelegantly as “religious sensibilities,”

4

resolving a riddle

in her network is a principal goal of this study, because therein lies the solution to the twofold riddle of the nature of Marguerite’s religion and of the early Reformation in France. By refocusing on collective activity, this study will explore the extent to which Marguerite and her network strove to promote a reform agenda corresponding to the heterodox views scholars have detected in her literary works and those of her evangelical brethren. Given her closeness to the crown, it will be vital to examine in what ways Marguerite and her network sought to shape the religious and political policies of Francis I and assess their success or failure. Furthermore, this analysis must broach the question of how their activities affected the development of the Reformed Protestant movement and the later Wars of Religion. To frame this inquiry, it is necessary first to spell out the keen insights, half answers, and the several flawed alternatives offered by scholars that have served as this study’s point of departure.

French Reformation Historiography: The “Magnificent Anarchy” Marguerite and French Evangelicals In the conclusion to his rich study of Marguerite’s life and literary works, Pierre Jourda had to account for what appeared to him as the disjunction between her deeds and beliefs (see the third epigraph prefacing the introduction).8 To the riddle of her life he offered what has remained a minority solution, asserting that Marguerite dabbled with religious dissenters because of her deep religious longings, curiosity, and compassion, but that in the face of the contentious confusion they caused she reaffirmed her adherence to the Roman Catholic Church.

or perhaps “sentiments” or even “feelings.” With this term Febvre was trying to get beyond denoting mere tenets of doctrine to also include the personal, psychological, and affective dimensions of religion. For our part, we prefer “beliefs” since this term more closely reflects the constant use by Marguerite and her group of the verb “croire” (to believe), especially in opposition to “cuider” (to believe falsely). 8 In the course of Jourda’s presentation of her “character and ideas” he contradicts himself so many times that one cannot help concluding his vision of Marguerite’s inconsistency is simply a reflection of his own confusion in approaching her multifaceted career and literary corpus. Lucien Febvre declared that despite many biographies and studies Marguerite remained “une des plus irritantes énigmes de son siècle,” and yet made her the focus of his penetrating study of sixteenth-century religion, Amour sacré, amour profane: autour de l’Heptaméron (Paris: Gallimard, 1944).

marguerite of navarre & the french reformation

5

Although he admits that there was a divergence between her seemingly Protestant writings and her Catholic deeds, he blames this “embarrassing contradiction”—embarrassing for those, like Abel Lefranc, who maintained her complete Protestantism—on her imprudent curiosity, her lack of manly strength, and her inconstancy as a weak, though generous-hearted, woman.9 In reading Jourda’s biography of Marguerite, one quickly realizes that he ignores or is at pains to fend off the implications of her engagement with heterodox doctrines and active reformers.10 On many important occasions, his study, which is structured as a sort of travelogue, simply notes in passing important examples of Marguerite’s role in the political struggles and religious turmoil during her brother’s reign, but fails to interpret what she was trying to accomplish.11 Whereas Jourda thought Marguerite lacked strength of character, Lucien Febvre credited her with a consistency rooted in her intense desire for self-abnegation in God and honesty to her own profound 9 “. . . autant que les actes de la Reine ne concordent pas toujours avec les idées qu’elle développe, et qu’il y a là, (quoi qu’en dise A. Lefranc) une contradiction embarrassante.” Jourda, Marguerite 2, 1067. Based upon a reading of Marguerite’s religious works, excluding the Heptaméron, Abel Lefranc declared her to have been completely Protestant, indeed specifically Calvinist at the end of her life; see Les idées religieuses de Marguerite de Navarre d’après son œuvre poétique: Les marguerites et les dernières poésies (Paris, 1898; repr. Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1969). Jourda admitted that her ideas were heterodox but repeatedly emphasized that throughout her life she continued to support monastic foundations and to engage in traditional Catholic practices such as meditation and lighting candles. 10 Jourda systematically ignores or downplays the evidence of Marguerite’s deep engagement with evangelical reform in order to sustain his oft repeated thesis: “. . . rein n’autorise à croire pourtant que Marguerite ait voulu . . . rompre avec la stricte orthodoxie. Ses relations avec le groupe de Meaux ne l’empêchent nullement d’observer dans les plus humbles détails les rites catholiques.” Marguerite, 81; see further 142 and 154. 11 Our opinion rejoins that of Augustin Renaudet: “Aux défenseurs actuels de son orthodoxie le soin d’en montrer l’accord avec le catholicisme contemporain.” “Marguerite de Navarre: A propos d’une biographie” in Humanisme et Renaissance: Dante, Pétrarque, Standonck, Érasme, Lefèvre d’Étaples, Marguerite de Navarre, Rabelais, Guichardin, Giordano Bruno (Geneva, 1958; repr. Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1981), 217–235; 224. See further Henry Heller’s note, in Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, 15, n. 3. Cf. Lucien Febvre’s praise “L’étude d’ensemble [of the life and works of Marguerite] existe, excellente, depuis la publication des thèses de Pierre Jourda; elle n’aura pas besoin, d’ici longtemps, d’être refaite ou reprise en sous-main; et d’ailleurs, d’une telle réfection, s’il en était jamais besoin, un historien ne saurait être l’artisan qualifié.” Amour sacré, 14. The present author does not pretend, however much “en sous-main,” to replace Jourda’s biography and survey of literary works; rather, he attempts to make intelligible her life and deeds for which her literary works serve as sources and (in their publication) as examples of her proselytizing deeds.

6

resolving a riddle

spiritual needs. When describing the foundation of her psychological unity, her religion, Febvre asserted that none of the several influences on her epitomized its essence: A Catholic Marguerite; an evangelical Marguerite; a Protestant Marguerite; a Lutheran Marguerite; a Calvinist Marguerite; a mystic Marguerite. . . . For us, here, we say simply: Marguerite was Marguerite, that’s all and that’s enough. Marguerite lived the religion of Marguerite, a religion that she made herself, for herself, little by little, with unceasing changes, transformations, retouches, and adaptations that modified the form of her ideas . . . while keeping them in permanent accord with her own profound nature.12

In effect, three interpretations have been advanced about Marguerite’s religion. She was either completely Protestant (Lefranc), a prodigal Catholic (Jourda), or an open-minded, non-confessional believer (Febvre). Most scholars since Lucien Febvre have put her in the latter category. Henry Heller, Paula Sommers, Renja Salminen, and Gary Ferguson agree that she took on the reformers’ dual emphasis on sola fideist soteriology and Scripture as the sole authority in religion, that she combined these ideas within a form of unitive mysticism, and that all other influences were subordinate to these elements.13 They assert that the variety of the influences on her prevent placing her in any one confessional category. These scholars follow Febvre’s vision of Marguerite as a believer beyond the confessions, or, rather, as a believer living freely before the confessional age. This characterization leads to an easy explanation of the riddle of her life by denying that there could have been any contradictions. Rejecting the anachronistic confessional yardsticks

12 “Marguerite catholique; Marguerite évangélique; Marguerite protestante; Marguerite luthérienne; Marguerite calviniste; Marguerite mystique, . . . Pour nous, ici, disons simplement: Marguerite a été Marguerite, c’est tout et c’est assez. Marguerite a vécu la religion de Marguerite, une religion qu’elle s’est faite elle-même, pour elle-même, petit à petit, avec des changements, des transformations, des retouches, des adaptations, incessantes, qui ont modifié la forme de ses idées . . . tout en les maintenant en accord permanent avec la nature profond . . . d’une femme. . . .” Lucien Febvre, Amour sacré, amour profane: autour de l’Heptaméron (Gallimard, 1944), 194. 13 Henry Heller, “Marguerite of Navarre and the Reformers of Meaux,” BHR 33 (1971), 279–310; Marguerite de Navarre, Le miroir de l’âme pécheresse, ed. Renja Salminen (Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1979), 31–84; Paula Sommers, Celestial Ladders: Readings in Marguerite de Navarre’s Poetry of Spiritual Ascent, THR 203 (Geneva: Droz, 1989); Gary Ferguson, Mirroring Belief: Marguerite de Navarre’s Devotional Poetry (Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press, 1992).

marguerite of navarre & the french reformation

7

of the victors, Tridentine Catholicism and Reformed Protestantism, Marguerite could not have adhered to, dissented from, or failed to have enacted what did not yet exist. Rather, she absorbed many influences and brought them into an arrangement all her own, which defies categorization but not exposition. This may explain why most scholars have not been interested in what she may or may not have done to actualize those beliefs, since they have, in effect, found no basis to believe that she would have sided exclusively with any one of the competing religious groups in the tumultuous age in which she lived.14 The key point to grasp here is that Marguerite is seen as doubly representative of the state of religious dissent during her age as most scholars portray it. The plurality of influences on her reflects the surrounding religious diversity; her final, individualistic synthesis exemplifies the impossibility of ever creating a unified movement out of all those diverse positions. To each their own.

14 Seventy years on, scholarship remains indebted to the harvest of sources gathered by Pierre Jourda and others since, but assessment of Marguerite’s role in the religious ferment of the age has advanced little. In her 2004 biographical study of the queen of Navarre, The Power and Patronage of Marguerite de Navarre, Women and Gender in the Early Modern World (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004), Barbara Stephenson draws on that fund of material as well as some evidence from other sources. Stephenson seeks to show that Marguerite was a remarkably powerful woman in a male-dominated world, a thesis the present study seconds and corroborates. The present work however will develop a different argument regarding Marguerite’s main priorities and the ends to which she used her power. In their 2006 biography, Patricia F. Cholokian and Rouben C. Cholakian have again traversed the well-worn path of trying to discern the deep currents of Marguerite’s life and thought through a close reading of her literary works; their signal contribution is to have re-read her Heptaméron closely for autobiographical details. Their well-written (if somewhat speculative) biography is focused in different directions than the present study—on Marguerite’s emotions, and in particular her relationships with the people around her, especially the men. It does not pretend to add new evidence, but is rather a renewed and elaborated vision of the life-experiences that fed a great Renaissance author’s pen. Their conclusion to the riddle of Marguerite’s life, however, amounts to a watered-down version of Febvre’s vision, which the present study is trying to correct with respect to her religious engagements: “So in the end who was this woman? The modern recovery of Marguerite has, it seems, engendered among specialists two capital questions to which the discussion invariably returns: Was she a proto-Protestant? Was she a feminist before the letter? The answer to both questions is a resounding yes, if we mean someone concerned with the abuse of religious authority and the mistreatment of women in a male-dominated society. But above all, Marguerite was her own person. She started no movements and belonged to none. If anything, she belonged to the Renaissance. . . . We are loath to put a single label on the queen of Navarre, but, if one is required, it would no doubt have to be: ‘Humanist.’” Patricia F. Cholakian and Rouben C. Cholakian, Marguerite de Navarre: Mother of the Renaissance (New York: Columbia University Press, 2006), 314; emphasis added.

8

resolving a riddle

The Problem of Evangelical Identity Lucien Febvre is widely recognized for more than his leading role in Marguerite studies, and indeed stands at the head of modern historiography of the early French Reformation. In 1929, he put to rest a “badly put question” about the origins and specificity of the French Reformation, giving the palm to Luther for having sparked it all while denying that either the Saxon monk, Lefèvre, or any other reformer put a definitive stamp on it.15 Febvre established a vision of the religious ferment in the period before the rise of the confessions that has become dominant among scholars of the history of the Reformation in France, namely that a “magnificent anarchy” reigned until the “tyranny” of the confessional age crushed the soaring souls of the many people who had been attempting to exercise their spiritual freedom.16 Whereas Febvre posited that there were dozens of different religious sensibilities before confessional lines hardened, most scholars use a tripartite typology to describe the religious landscape. The terms of this schema vary from scholar to scholar, so it may be helpful to turn to its classic formulation.17 Imbart de la Tour defined these three options as

15 See Robert Mandrou, “Le renouvellement de l’historiographie de la Réforme: Lucien Febvre et la Réforme” in Historiographie de la Réforme, ed. Philippe Joutard (Paris-Neuchatel-Montreal: Delachaux & Niestlé S.A., 1977), 339–351. Febvre may have been inspired for the title of his seminal article by a note in Imbart de la Tour’s third volume, where he responds to the debate over the ‘German’ or ‘French’ origins of the French Reformation and Lefèvre’s role in it: “nous croyons que le problème a été mal posé.” Vol. 3, 426–427, n. 2. In Febvre’s article “Une question mal posée . . .” he never cites Imbart de la Tour’s third volume (though it had been in print for fifteen years when he wrote), mentioning only the first two volumes and citing Renaudet’s criticism of the arbitrariness of Imbart’s confessional periodization in the third volume. He cites many of the same authors as Imbart—though, remarkably, not Imbart himself—in the first two sections of his essay. See Au cœur religieux, 7–35; especially 35 n. 1 and further 47 n. 2. 16 See the second epigraph at the head of this introduction. Febvre further argues: “De tous ceux qui ont vécu en ces temps troublés, ce sont les meilleurs, les plus généreux, le plus vivant qui ont tenté un effort inouï pour se faire à eux-mêmes une foi bien adaptée à leurs besoins.” Au cœur religieux, 94 ff. In 1944 he quoted his conclusion of 1929, and, though he dropped the word anarchy, reaffirmed that the period (1490–1550) was “un temps de magnifique et prodigue floraison” for those curious souls of Marguerite’s generation who attempted “un effort presque désespéré pour briser les cadres étroits des Églises—et fonder, sur leurs ruines, la vivante variétés (sic) de libres croyances.” Amour sacré, 196. 17 For a prior tri-partite schema of the various opinions about Marguerite’s religion, see Abel Lefranc, Idées religieuses, 1–2, citing Henri Hauser for the schema’s broader application to the period as a whole.

marguerite of navarre & the french reformation

9

conservative (non-reforming), evangelical or reformist (reforming but non-schismatic), and reformed (reforming and schismatic).18 Building on this model, scholars have taken seriously Febvre’s contention that there were no hard and fast confessional lines before the mid-century. Debate revolves around describing the outer limits of the spectrum: How broad was the Catholic fold before Trent? How diverse were the Protestants? The answers to these two questions become the measure for identifying all those who fall between the arch-conservative Catholics who sided with the Sorbonne and the uncompromising reformers who rejected the medieval church once and for all. Depending on the interpretive standard used, the two confessional camps of the intransigents—which define the poles of the religious spectrum—grow at the expense or shrink to the profit of the middle group. When approaching the middle group, many scholars have accepted Febvre’s vision of a broad pre-confessional religious diversity (anarchy), in which there were no leaders, structure, or essential coherence to the varieties of doctrines espoused or the people who espoused them. Others have concentrated on portioning the middle ground into subsets. Whether these scholars see the middle groups as historical entities or merely as categories of analysis, they have located the touchstone of these groups’ coherence in either doctrinal positions or religious sentiments, which, differing sensibly from strictly Catholic and Protestant positions, were often a cross-selection of the two.19

18

Imbart de la Tour had a particular evolutionary model of the changes in the religious terrain. He asserted that there were at first only the conservative and evangelical options, and that, circa 1530, the early ‘evangelical’ group bifurcated into a Catholic reformist wing, which, thankfully for France, preserved the yield of the Renaissance for the Catholic Church, and another radical branch which formed the root-stock of the Reformed movement. Imbart de la Tour sees further subdivisions in these camps that need not concern us here. His work, however, is fundamental for our understanding of the origins of the Reformation in France. Based largely on primary sources, many of them archival, it is a monumental work of scholarship. His interpretation is all the more impressive because of the clear chronological and terminological framework he brings to the subject. Lucien Febvre seems—though it is impossible to say exactly, since he studiously avoids confronting Imbart—to have promulgated his ‘anarchy’ thesis as an antidote to Imbart’s neat compartmentalization of the religious options and their periodization. See note 15. 19 Thierry Wanegffelen offers one of the most thorough and chronologically wideranging reassessments of these coordinates, maintaining a particularly broad view of the Catholic fold prior to Trent. See Thierry Wanegffelen, Ni Rome ni Genève: Des fidèles entre deux chaires en France au XVIe siècle, Bibliothèque Littéraire de la Renaissance, 3rd series, vol. 36 (Paris: Honoré Champion, 1997).

10

resolving a riddle

Following the problem of religious classification is the important question: why did these middle groups not succeed in offering major alternatives to the Catholic and Protestant Reformations? Most scholars have felt that the individuality, timidity, and heterogeneity of most dissenters during the early Reformation in France prevented them from changing their world. According to Imbart de la Tour, evangelicals and reformists ‘failed’ to reform the church because they lacked either unity or strength of character.20 His assessment has been widely accepted.21 Historians who follow Lucien Febvre’s call to study the ‘religious sentiments’ of Marguerite and other evangelicals have not seriously delved into how they may have tried to put their views into practice.22

20

While building up to his final assessment that individualism was the law of the early French Reformation (the third epigraph at the head of this introduction), Imbart highlights the diversity of the early French Reformation by comparing it to the German Reformation: “Le mouvement religieux qui soulève l’Allemagne a eu, dès le premier jour, sa théologie comme ses chefs. . . . Rien de pareil en France. Et c’est un des caractères de notre révolution religieuse que, jusqu’à Calvin, elle naisse, grandisse, se propage sans qu’un homme, un groupe, un système parviennent à la dominer. Elle n’a point encore de chef. Parmi ces premiers ouvriers de l’évangélisme, aucun [not Lambert, Meigret, Berquin, Lecourt, or Farel], en effet, qui s’impose. . . . Et avec un chef, ce qui manque encore à cette Réforme naissante, ce sont un symbole et une organisation. . . . Aucun lien non plus qui rattache tous ses premiers groupes. Entre Meaux, Toulouse, Alençon, bientôt dispersés d’ailleurs, le fonds commun d’idées n’a pas crée la communauté de la discipline. L’individualisme est d’abord la loi de notre Réforme à ses débuts.” Origines 3, 416. 21 For more on the argument that there was no essential doctrinal unity or effective leadership among evangelicals and that this foreclosed any attempt to bring about a reformation, see Donald R. Kelley, The Beginning of Ideology: Consciousness and Society in the French Reformation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), esp. 15–16 and 111; David Nicholls, “Social Change and Early Protestantism in France: Normandy, 1520–62,” European Studies Review 10 (1980), 279–308; idem, “The Nature of Popular Heresy in France, 1520–1542,” The Historical Journal 26 (1983), 261–275; idem, “France” in The Early Reformation in Europe, 120–141, ed. Andrew Pettegree (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992); and idem, “Heresy and Protestantism, 1520–1542: Questions of Perception and Communication,” French History 10 (1996), 182–205; Mark Greengrass, The French Reformation (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1987), 1–20, esp. 19–20; and William Monter, Judging the French Reformation (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999), 112–115. Cf. Guy Bedouelle, Lefèvre d’Étaples et l’intelligence des Écritures, THR 152 (Geneva: Droz, 1976), 94 ff. All of these works are fine studies and have significant merits. They are cited here only to show the large scholarly consensus about the fragility of the evangelical movement within France. 22 When introducing his study of the psychology and ethics of Marguerite and her age, Febvre stresses his concern to go beyond a mere history of the sources (“au lieu d’épuiser des inventaires . . . besogne simple”!) to render intelligible their alien mental make-up. Amour sacré, 9–15. In this study he rarely makes a sortie from literary sources to events, and indeed ends up describing psyches without bodies, psyches from an alien past but not in history.

marguerite of navarre & the french reformation

11

For the Febvrists, ‘evangelicalism’ did not exists as a movement or entity (Imbart’s middle group), just evangelicals with their individual religious profiles. In his synthesis of scholarship, Denis Crouzet accurately reproduced and endorsed this dominant tendency: Rather than study the general phenomenon of evangelicalism after 1534, we have decided to present several notable figures. After all, there was no such thing as “Evangelicalism,” only evangelicals, who—such was the logic of their whole approach—reduced the essence of religion into a personal relationship with God.23

He goes on to discuss the religious sentiments of only Gérard Roussel, Marguerite of Navarre, and François Rabelais. These evangelicals’ historical role is thus reduced to serving as test cases or exemplars of the variety of exotic fish swimming in the warm waters of Febvre’s magnificent religious anarchy.24

23 A bit freely rendered in our translation, Crouzet wrote: “Plutôt que d’étudier globalement le fait de l’évangélisme d’après 1534, il a été ici procédé au choix de présenter quelques figures marquantes. Car il n’y a pas un évangélisme, mais des évangéliques, ce qui est logique, parce qu’avec leurs démarches mêmes, la religion est individualisée en un rapport particulier à Dieu.” Denis Crouzet, La genèse de la Réforme française, 1520 –1562 (Paris: SEDES, 1996), 317 (emphasis added). Crouzet maintains with other scholars that evangelicals occupied the middle position in a three-part ‘jeu historique.’ He maintains that they were ‘in the game’ until 1562. Ibid., 344. Nevertheless, this group beggars description: “. . . il devient très difficile de caractériser les multiples parcours individuels qui se démarquent peu à peu. Les hommes vivaient alors entre deux époques entre le ‘système’ de l’unité religieuse et le système des fixations confessionnelles. Ils vivent, pour certains, dans un monde d’inventions théologiques, d’empirisme de la foi.” Ibid., 124, and 134–135. 24 For Febvre’s test cases, see “le cas Lefèvre” as in note 15 and “le cas Briçonnet” (Au cœur religieux, 193–215), “Un cas désespéré?: Dolet” (Au cœur religieux, 193–215), and, of course, “le cas Marguerite” (Amour sacré, esp. p. 20). For a discussion of Febvre’s three ‘archetypes’—Luther, Erasmus, and Calvin—for the whole of this era’s religious history, see Mandrou, “Le renouvellement,” 343–345. It would be unwarranted, however, to imply that most authors necessarily follow Febvre’s enthusiasm for casting this period as a sort of pre-enlightenment paradise of free inquiry before the confessional age of rigid orthodoxies. As Febvre sees it: “De tous ceux qui ont vécu en ces temps troublés, ce sont les meilleurs, les plus généreux, les plus vivants qui ont tenté un effort inouï pour se faire à eux-mêmes une foi bien adaptée à leurs besoins . . . le drame qui en fait la grandeur véritable et qui mit aux prises, dans des milliers de consciences tourmentées de scrupules et partagées entre des obligations contradictoires, les nécessitées de la discipline sociale et les libres aspirations de la conscience individuelle.” Au cœur religieux, 95; see further 196. Crouzet does, however, echo Febvre in his description of the age as one of “empirical faith.” See the previous note.

12

resolving a riddle

From the Early Reformation in France to the Calvinist Ascendancy John Calvin and Geneva are universally credited with having shepherded the rise of Reformed Protestantism in France. Yet how they accomplished that feat remains largely unknown.25 Most studies have centered on the attractive power of Calvin’s thought, the increased availability of French ‘Protestant’ books from Geneva after 1540, and the institutions (such as schools) that served as conduits for the spread of heterodox ideas.26 These are crucially important elements of the story but some very basic questions remain: Where did all those underground evangelical or Protestant conventicles come from, prior to Calvin? What, in fact, were they? How many, when, and why did they join the Reformed fold? How unified were they with Geneva? Henry Heller has offered a rich answer to how and why Calvinism gained a broad hearing from several segments of the French population. In his survey of seven representative provincial cities he attempts to show how Calvinism appealed to diverse groups because it addressed each one’s broad aspirations for reform, including those motivated by their economic and social discontent. Moreover, he seeks to explain how people drawn from antagonistic social strata—artisans at odds with town notables—were able to join together to form new Reformed churches within the stratified social structures of ancien régime France. Given the size of the Reformed movement, Heller aims only to provide an

25 The best history of the Reformation in France in English relates that: “All the signs are, in fact, that the birth of the Calvinist church in France was a rather messy affair which Geneva was not in a position to control or direct.” Greengrass, The French Reformation, 40. See further Crouzet, Genèse, 345–473, esp. 438–441. When surveying the French scene, Peter Blickle, the distinguished social historian of the German and Swiss Reformations, writes justly that based on the present state of scholarship, “there are no convincing explanations for Calvin’s success in France.” See Blickle’s “The Popular Reformation” in Handbook of European History, 1400–1600: Late Middle Ages, Renaissance, and Reformation, 2 vols., ed. Thomas A. Brady, Jr., Heiko A. Oberman, and James D. Tracy (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994 and 1995), vol. 2, 161–192, at 181–182, in which he cites Nicholls, “France,” 132. Indeed, Nicholls has been a leading proponent of the ‘in the beginning all was formless and void’ thesis of the genesis of the French Reformation, which then renders a second mystery all the more perplexing: how did Calvin do it (ex nihilo)? From the vantage point of his deep knowledge about the latter half of sixteenth century and the seventeenth century, Philip Benedict notes that the period before the rise of the Reformed churches requires much more systematic study—but, interestingly, he does not speak of anarchy. Philip Benedict, “Settlements: France” in Handbook of European History 1400 –1600, vol. 2, 417–454, 426; for the rise of the Reformed churches, cf. 427–429. 26 See chapter 1 for an account of the Calvinist Ascendancy.

marguerite of navarre & the french reformation

13

explanatory model, not a complete history of the rise of Calvinism. In fact, apart from those scholars who look at the religious literature of the period (a rich but hardly over-studied field), Heller is one of the few to seriously broach the problem of the transition from the early evangelical movement to the Calvinist ascendancy from 1525 to 1560. A key component to the riddle of the Reformed ascendancy is how Calvin and his colleagues, operating from outside France, managed to organize and animate co-religionists within the realm. Some of the communities where Reformed churches eventually formed as well as many leaders of the Huguenot movement had ties to Marguerite and others who traveled in her orbit. The fact that Calvin, Farel, and dozens of their less famous colleagues broke with the French evangelical circles connected to Marguerite raises the question of the extent to which Calvin and his exiled colleagues ‘created’ the French Protestant movement out of some formless mass of evangelical sentiment, and to what extent they established control over, transformed, and built up an already existing community with which they had long-standing ties. Since Marguerite’s network has never been posited as a historical actor, the question of a direct filiation between these evangelicals and the Reformed churches has never been framed in this way.27 This question forms the outer limit of this inquiry.

Structure of Study This study will explore the hypotheses that the Navarrian Network existed, that its members articulated a set of coherent and consistent religious beliefs, and, furthermore, that they acted to see them adopted through politics and by rooting them in institutions. The first two chapters give overviews of the period in order to orient the closely argued chronological chapters that follow. Chapter 1 presents a survey of the early Reformation in France—from its late medieval roots to the establishment of the first Reformed churches in the 1550s—as it 27 Nancy Lyman Roelker established that Marguerite and her court shaped the faith of a large number of the leading Huguenot women of the next generation, including her daughter Jeanne d’Albret. See “The Appeal of Calvinism to French Noblewomen in the Sixteenth Century,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 2 (1972), 391–418. Her study has masterfully set an agenda for future systematic studies of the transmission of dissent from the evangelical to the Huguenot generations via noble and family affinity groups.

14

resolving a riddle

is currently understood in scholarship. Chapter 2 summarizes the full range of Marguerite and her network’s efforts to promote reform from 1520 to 1550 and assesses the quality and types of sources available to reconstruct their multi-front campaign. The chronological chapters that follow (3 through 11) do not aim to provide a complete history of Marguerite and her network. As these chapters demonstrate, that project is not feasible because of the scores of episodes and hundreds of people involved, the lack of detailed studies of most of these, and the poor state of the source-base developed to date. Rather, these chapters seek to provide a compelling analysis of the network’s major stages of development and principal activities until the end of Marguerite’s life. Chapters are framed according to the turning points in the political climate that shaped the network’s freedom of action. Their titles reflect the dominant features of the network’s efforts under those circumstances. Greater attention is given to exploring the network’s early years in large part because the best available evidence comes from that period. Several themes are stressed and recur throughout this exploration of Marguerite’s network. First, Marguerite’s economic and political power, which enabled her to serve as patron of the network, is assessed at different junctures. Chapters 2, 3, and 11, in particular, investigate Marguerite’s territorial power and position at court. These questions are also revisited over the course of chapters 7 through 9. Chapter 4 pursues the humanist studies of Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples and his circle—who formed the initial core of Marguerite’s network—from circa 1500 up to their involvement in the Meaux reform in 1521. This chapter examines the extent to which their scholarship prepared the way for their subsequent involvement in a program of religious renewal. The beginning of the Meaux experiment is examined in Chapter 5 in light of antecedent late medieval episcopal reform. Chapters 6 through 8 trace how the network knit together around the Meaux group and Marguerite and her entourage at court from 1521 to 1530 and examine the full range of their ambitious agenda. In particular, the network’s launching of a printing campaign in 1525 to promote the evangelical cause is described in chapter 7. Their ongoing book production is assessed in chapters 8 and 10. Chapter 9 takes in a long period, from 1531 to 1539, concentrating principally on the tumultuous events of 1533–1535: Roussel’s sermons at the Louvre; Nicolas Cop’s address to the University of Paris; the Affair of the Placards and its aftermath; as

marguerite of navarre & the french reformation

15

well as the effort by evangelicals at court to bring Henry VIII, Clement VII/Paul III, and the German Protestants into dialogue with France for the purpose of reaching a religious settlement and political alliance against Charles V. Chapter 10 presents an overview of an undiagnosed ‘literary turn’ in the early Reformation in France, showing that starting in 1530s and continuing on into the 1540, Marguerite and a host of fellow writers became a vibrant, public voice of evangelical doctrine and renewal. Chapter 11 caps this history by demonstrating that well into the 1540s, long after Marguerite’s influence is thought to have waned and the evangelical movement to have dissipated, her network continued to strive, desperately, to pursue their long-standing goals of religious renewal both by intervening in Francis I’s foreign affairs as well as by building evangelical institutions on the home front. The conclusion offers an interim assessment about the impact of the network, raising questions about its legacy in producing communities of believers and leaders who would enter the Huguenot and moyenneur camps during the Wars of Religion.

CHAPTER ONE

THE EARLY REFORMATION IN FRANCE

No Protestant churches were successfully established in France before 1555. Yet a minority Reformed Church sprang up during the next seven years that was strong enough to survive forty years of civil war and secure a place within Roman Catholic Europe’s ‘Most Christian Kingdom.’ Preoccupation with the French Protestant movement’s late, rapid growth has colored interpretation of its prehistory. Theologians and church historians have long studied the Reformation as a revolt against the medieval church prompted by new doctrines. More recently, social historians have explored how the Reformation altered the rhythms of everyday life and even peoples’ worldviews as Protestants changed the roles of the clergy, disciplining institutions, and rituals in their lives. Since the French Huguenots fulfilled this double historical mission as religious revolutionaries and founders of new religious communities, in some contrast to their predecessors, scholars have seen the early French Reformation era as the faltering prelude to the Huguenots’ dynamic advent. Accounts of the early period concentrate on explaining to what extent Reformation doctrines penetrated France and why their adherents failed to alter France’s religious makeup before the mid-century.1 Taking the earliest French reformers, evangelicals, on their own terms upsets this teleological, plotline-driven interpretation. Although they

1 In this chapter, exact page citations will only be provided for direct quotations and arguments specifically attributed to their authors. Bibliographical references to the seminal studies upon which this overview is framed are provided in the notes. Mark Greengrass, The French Reformation (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1987) is the best introduction in English to the period prior to the Wars of Religion. For more comprehensive coverage, Denis Crouzet, La genèse de la Réforme française, 1520–1562 (Paris: SEDES, 1996) provides an up-to-date synthesis framed around his innovative views, while Pierre Imbart de la Tour, Les origines de la Réforme, 4 vols. (Paris: Hachette, 1905–1935; repr. Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1978), especially vol. 3, “l’Évangélisme (1521–1538),” offers detailed evidence and a classic interpretation to which all modern studies refer. For the political context and the crown’s evolving response to religious dissent, see Robert Jean Knecht, Renaissance Warrior and Patron: The Reign of Francis I (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994). For field-defining views about religious sensibilities, see Lucien Febvre, Au cœur religieux du XVIe siècle, 2nd ed. (Paris: Le Livre de Poche, 1983 [1957]).

18

chapter one

held similar doctrines to German and Swiss Protestants, the French reformers did not believe that these required them to break with the established church. Rather, they attempted to renew it from within even while enduring persecution. Only gradually, after 1540, did what scholars regard as a classic Protestant movement come together under the influence of French reformers in exile, chiefly John Calvin, who offered a clear system of Reformed doctrine, a model church, and a firm demand to reject Catholicism.

Evangelical Growth In France, as elsewhere in Europe, religious devotion was on the rise at the end of the fifteenth century.2 After the devastation of the Hundred Years’ War, confraternities multiplied, some 900 churches were rebuilt, many more were sumptuously decorated, the ranks of the secular clergy and mendicant orders swelled, and people embraced newly introduced devotional practices such as the rosary. Fiery mendicant preachers incited their listeners to deeper piety and excoriated moral failings. Some scholars have interpreted the laity’s intensifying zeal for buying indulgences and founding obit masses as betraying deep fears about the pains of purgatory and even doubts about the assurance of their salvation—doubts that were excited by the church’s doctrine of sin but not fully assuaged by its economy of grace. Others counter that such enthusiasm plainly shows the vitality of late medieval popular religion and the church’s success in fostering it. Whatever the case (both assessments may well be true by turns), the church’s very success in cultivating lay piety and devotion made the

2 For an overview of religious life in France at the end of the Middle Ages by one of the field’s finest historians, see Francis Rapp, “Caractères nationaux au sein de la Chrétienté, III. La France” in De la Réforme à la Réformation (1450–1530), 341–367, vol. 7 of Histoire du Christianisme des origines à nos jours, ed. Marc Venard (Paris: Desclée, 1994). For the several currents of late-medieval reform and biblical humanism in Paris, see Augustin Renaudet’s magisterial Préréforme et humanisme á Paris pendant les premières guerres d’Italie (1494–1517) (2nd ed. Paris: Librairie d’Argences, 1953; 1st ed. Paris, 1916). On late medieval preaching in France, see Hervé Martin, Le métier de prédicateur en France septentrionale à la fin du Moyen Âge (1350–1520) (Paris: Cerf, 1988). For the state of the episcopate, see Marilyn M. Edelstein, “Church Patronage in France on the Eve of the Reformation” in Renaissance Society and Culture: Essays in Honor of Eugene F. Rice, Jr., ed. John Monfasani and Roland G. Musto (New York: Italica Press, 1991), 33–49.

the early reformation in france

19

people more likely to see the clergy’s faults. Anticlerical sentiment grew stronger as the church repeatedly failed to reform itself fully “in head and members”—from the pope through the clerical ranks—following the crisis of the fourteenth-century Great Schism. In the late fifteenth century, the tide of reformist sentiment rose again in France. A revived Observant movement had restored some ‘lax’ Benedictine, Dominican, and Franciscan houses to strict obedience to their rules, but after 1510 it ebbed for lack of sustained royal support. Among the secular clergy, only a few bishops had been inspired to provide spiritual direction. Although newly improved training programs at the University of Paris were producing some able priests, by and large the vast ranks of the parish clergy remained woefully ill-equipped to pastor their flocks. After 1500, Christian humanists—with Erasmus of Rotterdam in the vanguard—offered an inspiring way forward. Reviling clerical failings and superstitious devotions, they advocated that teaching the simple gospel message purified of scholastic obscurantism would renew the faith. The leading French biblical humanist Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples gave this goal substantial support by editing and writing commentaries on the Latin Vulgate Bible that expounded the Scriptures’ plain, vivifying meaning. Scholastic theologians in turn attacked humanists like Lefèvre, who was a mere master of the liberal arts, for questioning the authority of the Vulgate as well as the received doctrines of the church.3 Meanwhile, the Faculty of Theology (known as the Sorbonne) and the Parlement of Paris fought desperately against the Concordat of Bologna (1516) agreed upon by Francis I (1515–1547) and Pope Leo X (1513–1521), which stripped the Gallican church of its most important fiscal and administrative liberties.4 3 For conservative Catholics’ reaction to the religious ferment, see James K. Farge, Orthodoxy and Reform in Early Reformation France: The Faculty of Theology of Paris, 1500 –1543 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1985). 4 The term “Gallican church” denotes, technically, the hierarchy of clergy in France that culminated in the 110 or so bishops and archbishops of the realm, whose primate was the archbishop of Lyon. “Gallicanism” refers to a loose body of thought about the French church’s independence from Rome. The Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges (1443) accorded the French clergy the right of capitular election (i.e., popes and secular powers were not supposed thereafter to impose candidates on cathedral and monastic chapters) as well as freedom from annates (the tax, nominally equivalent to one year’s revenue, exacted by the Roman curia for conferring the title to a benefice). The Concordat of Bologna revoked both of these rights. The Parlement of Paris, which had similar pretensions to semi-autonomy vis-à-vis the king, supported French prelates in combating attempts by the king and the pope to increase control over the French Church. See the significant work by Alain Tallon, Conscience nationale et sentiment religieux en France

20

chapter one

When the strife over Martin Luther’s theses reached France in 1518 it heightened these doctrinal and ecclesiological tensions. Contemporary witnesses reported that humanists, clerics, and even some Sorbonne theologians read Luther’s books with enthusiasm. Lefèvre sent warm greetings to Luther in 1519.5 Then, in 1521, the Faculty of Theology of Paris followed the pope in condemning the friar’s doctrines as heretical and the Parlement of Paris outlawed books containing them. Thereafter, those inclined to heterodox doctrines—long condemned as Lutheran whatever their nature or origin—could only explore such innovations under the threat of persecution. The central questions for the spread of the Reformation in France were to be how secular authorities, chiefly the king, would define true doctrine and to what degree they would enforce orthodoxy. In 1518 Guillaume Briçonnet, bishop of Meaux, inaugurated a novel reform program which quickly became a high-profile testing ground for these questions. In 1521, exasperated by the clergy’s resistance to his attempt to improve religious instruction, Briçonnet invited Lefèvre and his disciples from Paris to conduct an intensive preaching campaign. The group included Michel d’Arande, Gérard Roussel, Guillaume Farel, Pierre Caroli, Martial Mazurier, and François Vatable, all of whom were open in varying degrees to the new doctrines and would go on to play leading roles in the religious controversies of the next thirty years. In his 1522 Latin Introductory Commentary on the Four Gospels, Lefèvre summarized their program as “to know the gospel, to follow the gospel, and to proclaim the gospel everywhere.”6 While ministers preached the ‘pure gospel’ in the diocese’s thirty-two preaching circuits, Lefèvre and his closest collaborators pursued a program of biblical scholarship and publishing in support of this pastoral reform. Intrigued by the religious ferment in Germany, they privately read and had growing admiration for the Protestant reformers’ works. Inspired by the au XVIe siècle: Essai sur la vision gallicane du monde (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2000) for the different sorts of Gallicanism and for the competition between their adherents at the Council of Trent; idem, Le France et le Concile de Trente (1518–1563), Bibliothèque des écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 295 (Rome: École française de Rome; Paris: Boccard, 1997). 5 Herminjard 1, no. 20, 45. 6 “Et hoc sit cunctis unicum studium, solatium, desiderium, scire evangelium, sequi evangelium, ubique promovere evangelium,” dedicatory epistle “to Christian readers,” Commentarii initiatori in quatuor Evangelia, in Eugene F. Rice, Jr., ed., The Prefatory Epistles of Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples and Related Texts (New York: Columbia University Press, 1972), no. 134, 435.

the early reformation in france

21

German reformers, they commenced translating the Bible into French and produced a vernacular preaching handbook. Briçonnet distributed Lefèvre’s Bible translations to the laity, who were then well equipped to attend Roussel’s daily lessons on Paul’s letter to the Romans and on the Psalms for the more advanced. Meanwhile, ministers associated with the Meaux group were promoting evangelical renewal elsewhere in the realm. After 1521, the king’s sister, Marguerite of Angoulême, duchess of Alençon (queen of Navarre after 1527), had d’Arande preach regularly at court and circulated Briçonnet’s letters of spiritual instruction as well as Lefèvre’s translation of Paul’s Epistles. Over the winter of 1523 to 1524, she had d’Arande appointed to give the Advent and Lenten sermons in her territories at Alençon and Bourges, while supporting like efforts by Aimé Meigret and Pierre de Sébiville in Rouen, Lyon, and Grenoble. Catholic conservatives detected Lutheran heresy at every turn. In 1522, the Faculty of Theology geared for battle when it received reports that d’Arande had taught privately at court that Luther was a saintly man—and, moreover, that if he had erred, it was no marvel, since other saints such as Augustine, Jerome, and others had occasionally been mistaken as well.7 Joined by the Parlement of Paris in the summer of 1523, over the next two years the Paris doctors repeatedly sought to indict the Meaux preachers and other evangelicals in Marguerite’s orbit for the heretical crimes of criticizing the cult of the saints, devotion to Mary, purgatory, indulgences, and fees for masses. In the wake of the first wave of persecution, a few French people wholly committed to the new doctrines, such as Guillaume Farel, fled to the Empire and Switzerland. The laity quickly came to know about France’s homegrown heretics. In 1524, a magistrate in Le Puy-de-Dôme in Auvergne blamed the preaching of d’Arande in Bourges and Meigret in Lyon against his town’s miracle-working Black Virgin for reducing the number

7 For d’Arande’s statement in 1522 at court, see chapter 6, note 60. In 1525, Mazurier was accused of preaching similarly at Meaux, “Où Luther a bien dit, homme n’a mieux dit, et où il a mal dit, homme n’a pis dit, comme dit S. Jerosme d’Origene,” quoted in translation from the Latin by Michel Veissière, L’évêque Guillaume Briçonnet (1470– 1534): contribution à la connaissance de la Réforme catholique à la veille du Concile de Trente (Provins: Société d’Histoire et d’Archéologie, 1986), 333. In 1537, the regent of Agen similarly recommended to a notable of Bordeaux that he read “Luther’s De Servo Arbitrio adding that he should do so in order to absorb what was good in it while to be sure rejecting what was bad,” Henry Heller, The Conquest of Poverty: The Calvinist Revolt in Sixteenth Century France (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1986), 86.

22

chapter one

of pilgrims attending jubilee celebrations in her honor. That winter, people coined the term “Lutherans of Meaux” after commoners there ripped down prayers to the Virgin and placards announcing a papal indulgence. When the German Peasants’ War spread to Lorraine in the spring of 1525, anxious Parisians panicked at the rumor of a Lutheran invasion. Meanwhile, prompted by Marguerite, the royal court intervened to save members of the Meaux group and others from successive heresy indictments. In 1523, for example, Francis I ensured that the courtier Louis de Berquin receive only a light reprimand for having been caught with works by Luther, some of which he had translated and intended to publish. Francis’s capture at the battle of Pavia (February 1525) brought matters to a head. The Parlement of Paris warned the regent, Louise of Savoy, that this disaster was God’s judgment for, among other faults, the court’s protection of heretics. During the king’s captivity she allowed conservatives to restart the machinery of repression, even against court favorites. Lefèvre, Roussel, and d’Arande fled to Strasbourg, while Berquin, Caroli, several other preachers, and ten commoners from Meaux stood trial. Returning in 1526, Francis I quashed these proceedings at his sister’s request. Recalling the exiles, Marguerite appointed Lefèvre as tutor to the royal children, obtained a bishopric for d’Arande, installed Caroli as curate of Alençon, and took Roussel as her personal minister. From 1521 to 1526, though Reformation doctrines were understood by few, the Lutheran threat became a national issue. Persecution forced native reformers to make choices. Three camps emerged that would endure until the establishment of the Reformed Church. Reformist prelates attracted to the pedagogical promise of biblical humanism emulated Briçonnet, who backed away from evangelical reform when it proved to incite the people to radical acts and invite judicial inquiry. After 1526, though a conscientious bishop, he did not dare do anything more than repeat past injunctions against clerical abuses. Those who, following the German and Swiss reformers, became convinced that obeying the gospel required rejecting the traditional church could either take Farel’s route to permanent exile or stay and risk the consequences. The remaining group, ‘evangelicals’ like those succored by Marguerite, sought strategic positions from which they might promote reform from within. Attracted to Protestant doctrines, they aimed chiefly at fostering a “living faith” among the laity, but balked at the reformers’

the early reformation in france

23

calls to cast off the traditional church, however deformed it may have appeared in the “pure light of the gospel.” As contemporaries recognized, the king’s decision would matter most in determining France’s religious orientation. Catholic conservatives remained frustrated long after 1526, since Francis continued to patronize many writers who espoused the new doctrines. He had certainly sworn at his coronation “to annihilate and drive out from the land subject to [his] jurisdiction all heretics pointed out and denounced by the church.”8 Yet only after 1539 did he consistently back the pursuit of heretics. Until then a modus vivendi reigned: so long as dissenters did not openly attack the faith, the king ignored conservatives’ pleas for their eradication. Although Francis’s stance is often interpreted as hesitation, it served to effectively balance his interests. He could not accept the theologians’ definition of heresy because they considered followers of Erasmus, Lefèvre, and Luther all to be equally “enemies of the faith.” Francis, an enthusiastic patron of Renaissance letters, had previously invited Erasmus to enter his service and esteemed the internationally renowned Lefèvre. Moreover, the Faculty of Theology and the Parlement of Paris had used heresy charges against his protégés as leverage in their attack on the court’s attempts to increase taxation, force the church to grant him ‘gifts,’ and manipulate the law courts. Secure in his control over the French Church under the Concordat, Francis had little reason to heed conservatives’ denunciations, lest in acting he give them opportunities to undermine his own authority. It was only an accumulation of events such as the Placards in 1534 (see below) and the ascendancy of conservative advisors such as Chancellor Duprat, Anne de Montmorency, and François de Tournon that gradually moved him to set inquisitorial machinery in motion.

The Crisis of Evangelicalism Francis I’s uncommitted stance left the impression that he might support a state-sponsored Reformation. Hopes for a royal reform were

8 Quoted in translation by J. H. Shennan, Government and Society in France 1461– 1661 (New York: Barnes and Noble; London: George Allen and Unwin, 1969), 79.

24

chapter one

never higher than during the early 1530s. In 1533, Marguerite had Roussel preach Lenten sermons which attracted 5,000 eager listeners in Paris. From rival pulpits, preachers sent out by the Sorbonne urged the people to rise up against Roussel, since the king refused to act. When Francis I banished the chief conservative preachers for fomenting rebellion and forced the Faculty of Theology to retract its censure of Marguerite’s recently published Mirror of the Sinful Soul, partisans of reform predicted imminent victory. Seizing the moment, Nicolas Cop used his All Saints’ Day (1533) oration to the assembled University of Paris as a platform to condemn religious persecution and to advocate public preaching of the gospel. Possibly co-authored by his young friend, John Calvin, the sermon expounded theological themes from Luther and Erasmus and concluded with a rousing call to action, whatever the consequences: The world and the wicked are wont to label as heretics, impostors, seducers, and evil-speakers those who strive purely and sincerely to penetrate the minds of believers with the gospel. . . . But happy and blessed are they who endure all this with composure, giving thanks to God in the midst of affliction. . . . Onward then, O Christians. With our every muscle let us strive to attain this great bliss.9

Cop’s bold words raised a storm of criticism and he and members of his circle—including John Calvin—were forced to leave Paris. However, evangelicals regained a public voice as Roussel preached again at Paris during Lent 1534 and their public battle with conservatives continued. Then, on the night of 17–18 October 1534, a militant fringe of the evangelical movement posted violently worded placards against “the horrible, great, and insufferable papal Mass devised in direct opposition to the Last Supper” in Paris, several regional cities, and the royal bedchamber at Amboise. Their provocation played straight into the conservatives’ hands. Attacking the Mass as “blasphemy,” priests as “charlatans, pests, and deceitful antichrists,” and the doctrine of transubstantiation as “the doctrine of devils,” the tract enraged authorities.10 Faced with an insufferable outrage against Christ’s blood and

9

Appendix III in John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1536 edition, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989 [1975]), 371. 10 Complete document in translation in R. J. Knecht, French Renaissance Monarchy: Francis I & Henry II (London: Longman, 1984), document 11, 91–92.

the early reformation in france

25

what appeared to be organized sedition, the king supported a brutal repression. Twenty-four were executed, others were imprisoned, and over seventy suspected heretics fled—including Pierre Caroli and the famed court poet Clément Marot. Francis I ended this first wave of persecution on 16 July 1535 with the Edict of Coucy, which opened the jails and offered amnesty to all exiles excepting “Sacramentarians” (those who held the Zwinglian doctrine of the Eucharist articulated in the placards), provided that they would abjure their errors within six months. Francis intended most immediately to allay the anger of German Protestant princes with whom he was trying to cement a political alliance based on a proposed religious colloquy with Philipp Melanchthon. Yet, even after these negotiations failed, he extended the pardon to Sacramentarians in 1536, thus reestablishing his regime’s modus vivendi. Roussel’s sermons, Cop’s address, and the Placards were explosive exceptions to the largely clandestine spread of evangelical and Protestant ideas during the early French Reformation. Persecution prevented any public leadership from forming, but policing was porous enough for the new doctrines to diffuse covertly. Occasionally from the parish pulpit, but more often in schoolrooms, nobles’ courts, homes, and workshops, people encountered such ideas by word of mouth and in new, increasingly available religious books. Although the full scope of this dissemination is far from clear, research done on heresy trial records and religious books has revealed much about its developing pace and content. France’s fifteen universities played a prominent role as the centers of propagation to the elites. The early enthusiasm for Luther at Paris was matched in Caen (1530) and Toulouse (1532), where authorities uncovered circles of professors discussing Protestant authors’ works with town notables. At the same time, in Bourges and Orleans, teaching masters expounded the new doctrines to students like Calvin, Theodore Beza (later, Calvin’s successor at Geneva), and many others. As university students took up posts in society they carried Reformation ideas across France. Some became regents of France’s multiplying municipal schools—at least thirty new collèges were established from 1530 to 1560. By one count, schoolmasters are known to have taught suspect doctrines in twenty-five cities by 1550.11

11

Heller, The Conquest of Poverty, 77.

26

chapter one

Communication lines to uneducated commoners were less structured. Pastors were one possible conduit. Remarkably, one third of accused heretics whose occupations were noted at Toulouse (1510–1560) and Paris (1547–1549) were in orders. Nevertheless, the first estate remained massively loyal to the traditional church. That contemporaries frequently complained about itinerant preachers propagating heresy highlights the extraordinary difficulty that curates who converted must have had proselytizing in their home parishes. In Meaux, as the evidence shows, commoners taught one another. A wool-comber inspired by the more radical preachers there, Jean Le Clerc was condemned to death for proselytizing and defacing a statue of the Virgin and Child at Metz in 1525. His last words spoke for all those commoners inspired to proclaim the gospel: Ha! My lords, do not be amazed if you see me here [i.e., a mere artisan], one who is going to die for the faith and for upholding the truth. . . . God gave me a mouth so that I might speak and I pray that He grant me true faith.12

In the following decades, authorities arrested other artisans from Meaux for instructing their confreres in Champagne and neighboring regions. A similar phenomenon occurred in Normandy, which by 1530 had gained a reputation as a “little Germany.”13 In the absence of preaching, religious books enabled Reformation ideas to spread on all levels. The Latin works of Luther, Melanchthon,

12 “Ha! Messieurs, ne soiés de rien esbahis, si me voyés icy, moy qui m’en vais mourir pour la foy et pour soubtenir verité. . . . Ha! messieurs vous ne me voulés laisser dire, pour ce que le cas vous touche: Dieu m’ait donné bouche pour parler, auquel je prie qu’il me donne vraye foy,” in J.-F. Huguenin, ed., Les chroniques de la ville de Metz (900 –1552) (Metz: S. Lamort, 1838), 826, col. A. Jean’s brother, Pierre, echoed these words when he went to the stake as a leader of the first Protestant church in France at Meaux in 1546; see Nathaniel Weiss, “Notes et documents sur la Réforme en Brie,” BSHPF 46 (1897), 642–643. 13 For the trial of Nicolas Boivin, a fuller from Meaux who held many advanced evangelical views, see J.-M. Roger and Michel Veissière, “Le dossier du procès devant l’Officialité de Troyes de Nicolas Boivin, soupçonné d’hérésie luthérienne (9 août 1528–5 février 1529),” in Le beau XVIe siècle Troyen: Aspects de la vie politique, économique, artistique, littéraire et religieuse à Troyes de 1480 à 1550, ed. P.-E. Leroy (Troyes: Centre Troyen de Recherche et d’Études Pierre et Nicolas Pithou, 1989), 415–437. For Normandy, see M. C. Oursel, “Notes pour servir à l’histoire de la Réforme en Normandie au temps de François Ier, principalement dans le diocèse de Rouen,” in Mémoire de l’Académie Nationale des Sciences, Arts et Belles-Lettres de Caen (1912), 103–256, separately paginated 1–156 at top of page; see also Martin Bucer’s letter to Martin Luther, 25 August 1530, in chapter 2, note 16.

the early reformation in france

27

Bucer, Zwingli, and other reformers circulated among the learned, since censorship prevented their domestic publication but not their distribution. Books in French reached a far broader audience, for although literacy rates were low people habitually read aloud in groups.14 Far fewer vernacular religious books circulated in France than in the Empire. By 1525 sermons and vernacular pamphlets (roughly three thousand editions totaling three million exemplars were in circulation) had already propelled the German Reformation forward. French heterodox books only began to be produced in any number after that date. Yet, of the one thousand or so editions of French religious books (totaling near one million copies) produced from then until 1550, a high proportion were evangelical or stridently Protestant.15 These tracts and treatises reached a large audience in the towns, where literacy was highest and the Reformation eventually penetrated deepest. People bought more Bible translations than any other text, despite a 1525 parlementary edict banning them. The Psalms, used as a prayer book and hymnal, appeared in seventy-five editions, fifty-two in Clément Marot’s censured verse renderings. Bibles and New Testaments were reprinted from Lefèvre’s translation (thirty-eight editions) and after 1535 from Olivétan’s popular Protestant rendering (thirty-nine editions), whose sales together far outstripped those of two traditional abridged versions (fourteen editions combined after 1521). Until the mid-1530s, evangelical authors and printers published short manuals of religious instruction in addition to Bibles. Simon Du Bois, an associate of the Meaux group, and other printers at Lyon, Basel, Strasbourg, and Antwerp offered to the laity devotional and catechetical texts by Erasmus, Luther, and other reformers that were designed to foster piety. Carefully avoiding outright attacks on the church or its doctrine, these tracts nevertheless highlighted the urgent need for reform. Translations of Luther’s works figured prominently. Yet the reader never encountered the strident opponent of the papacy but always an anonymous teacher, scriptural expositor, and spiritual counselor. Typical of the evangelicals’ eclectic attempt to provide teaching 14

Higman, Piety, 23, as in the following note. These figures are a conservative estimate, derived from Francis Higman’s extensive though not exhaustive bibliography of French religious books, Piety and the People: Religious Printing in French 1511–1551, St. Andrew’s Studies in Reformation History (Aldershot: Scolar Press, 1996). His collected articles contain many important studies of their content and references to the extensive literature in this field; see Lire et découvrir: La circulation des idées au temps de la Réforme (Geneva: Droz, 1998). 15

28

chapter one

texts, The Book of True and Perfect Prayer (1528), the most popular devotional work in French with fifteen reprints, offered portions of Luther’s exposition of the Lord’s Prayer and Creed together with texts by Farel and more traditional Catholic writers.16 The Brief Summation of the Substance and Foundation of Evangelical Doctrine (Paris: Du Bois, 1525) epitomizes the intent of such works. The unnamed author tells his “faithful readers” thirsting for “the Word of God” that, although it was no longer possible to preach publicly, “it remains possible, at least, for us to continue nourishing your faith with books.” He warns them not to take vengeance against “persecutors of the truth,” but to pray for God to convert them as well as the king.17 Overtly Protestant literature appeared after 1533, when Farel succeeded in establishing the Reformation in French-speaking territories east of France. From Neuchâtel, he and his fellow exiles Antoine Marcourt and the printer Pierre de Vingle published polemics against Catholic doctrine and practice, of which the 1534 placard was a particularly inflammatory example. After 1536 this activity centered on Geneva, where Calvin would become the dominant voice of French Protestantism, having established his reputation with the first Latin edition of his Institutes of the Christian Religion (1536).18

The Reformed Ascendancy Reformed Protestantism coalesced in France after 1540 largely due to the efforts of Calvin, Farel, their Swiss colleague Pierre Viret, and their large circle of helpers. They succeeded in broadcasting a galvanizing

16

Le livre de vraye et parfaicte oraison (Paris, Simon du Bois for Chrestien Wechel, 1528). See Higman, Piety, L 97–L 112, and idem, “Luther et la piété de l’église gallicane: le Livre de vraye et parfaicte oraison,” Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuse (1980), 91–111. 17 “Et certes nous aussi ausquelz est commise l’administration et dispensation dicelle parolle ne desirons riens tant que la vous povoir annocer pure et nette, telle qu’il la nous donne puiser de ses fontaines. Mais pourtant que sommes empeschez de ce faire par ceulz aux ventres et a la gloire desquelz nuiroit verité manifestée, affin que ne vous delaissons du tout, reste au moins que par escriptz ne cessons de aider vostre foi,” Brief recueil de la substance et principal fondement de la doctrine evangelique [Paris: Simon Du Bois, 1525], fol. A2r–v. See further chapter 8. 18 Christianae religionis institutio (Basel, 1536).

the early reformation in france

29

Reformed Protestant doctrine from abroad just as the French crown was launching a concerted campaign to extirpate heresy.19 Calvin’s influence in France emerged clearly after the publication of the French edition of his Institutes in 1541. The sensational impact of the work prompted a royal edict banning it in 1542, the same year in which a heretic at Rouen went to the stake quoting from it by heart to the assembled crowd. As evidence of heresy mounted, Francis I and Henry II (1547–1559) adopted successive measures against what was now seen as a clear threat to social order. Francis I asked the Faculty of Theology to draw up articles of faith which he published as the law of the realm (1543), along with a list of condemned books (1544) on which Calvin’s works figured prominently. Initially magistrates—some sympathetic, others hostile, but most indifferent to the new doctrines—failed to enforce heresy laws effectively. In the Edict of Chateaubriand (27 June 1551), Henry II gave persecution real teeth by requiring magistrates to prove their orthodoxy and ordering regular searches in bookstalls and houses. Genevan records of refugees arriving between 1549 and 1560 reveal the impact of these measures. French Protestants fled there in a growing stream, including scholars, printers, and nobles such as Beza, Robert Estienne, and Laurant de Normandie, who contributed to the vast increase in Genevan religious propaganda after 1550. Thus, persecution in France gave Geneva more leaders for the long revolt ahead. Many factors contributed to Calvin’s ascendancy over French evangelicals as persecution grew: his forceful prose; his extensive network of friends and admirers; the inability of evangelical leaders in France to speak publicly; Geneva’s proximity to Lyon, a hub of communications in France; and the spectacular output of the little city’s many presses. Above all, Calvin was a very persuasive teacher. His Institutes offered the first clear and systematic presentation of the new doctrines in French 19 The literature is rich on the doctrines of these three figures and their careers at Geneva, Neufchatel, Lausanne, and the surrounding environs. Their mission to and influence in France prior to the rise of the Reformed churches receives treatment in the surveys of the period (see note 1), but there is not yet a full monograph devoted to the subject. For a programmatic statement of Calvin’s Europe-wide vision of reform and France’s special place within it, see Heiko A. Oberman, Initia Calvini: The Matrix of Calvin’s Reformation (Amsterdam: Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, 1991), and idem, “Europa afflicta: The Reformation of the Refugees,” ARG 83 (1992), 91–111. For a penetrating analysis of Calvin’s influence in his homeland, see “Calvin and France: The Growth of Genevan Ascendancy: 1536–1550,” ch. 4 in Heller, The Conquest of Poverty.

30

chapter one

and contained a new vision of the Christian life and church. In the aftermath of the 1534 placards, his dedicatory epistle to Francis I at the head of the Institutes served as an apology for committed Protestants. He affirmed their obedience to secular authority, but warned that in religious matters they owed a higher allegiance to God. His polemical writings—Reply to Sadoleto, Treatise on Relics, Little Treatise on the Lord’s Supper, Little Treatise Showing What a Faithful Man Should Do among the Papists, Apology to the Nicodemites, Against the Frenzied Sect of the Libertines, On Scandals—attacked Catholics’ “false” beliefs and practices as well as “faint-hearted” evangelicals (Nicodemites) who acquiesced to them or slid into the comforting “heresies” of the “Libertines.”20 Calvin exhorted true believers to adhere to God’s truth without waiting for a royal reformation and without dissembling in the face of persecution. Some evangelicals found his demands too severe. In 1544, Antoine Fumée, a member of the Parlement of Paris, made a tortured appeal on behalf of French evangelicals. He complained that Calvin required the ultimate sacrifice when demanding that believers abstain from the Mass. Although recognizing it as an abuse, they would have to emigrate or face death to comply with his call. Calvin maintained his position, affirming that to “honor God body and soul,” flight or abstaining—whatever the consequences—were the only alternatives to “polluting” oneself. Calvin’s signal contribution to the rise of Protestantism was to give direction to the evangelical conventicles that had sprung up since the early 1520s. At such gatherings people read scripture or discussed religious tracts, prayed, and exhorted each other to live a holy life. The books of Calvin and his colleagues provided materials to enrich their meetings. Moreover, Calvin encouraged them to remain steadfast, sending consoling messages to prisoners and letters of advice to these embryonic Protestant communities. Commoners formed a church at Meaux in 1545 on the model of a refugee church in Strasbourg founded

20 Ordered chronologically by date of first edition, these were the Epistolae duae (1537) reworked into French as the Petit traicté monstrant que doit faire un fidele entre les papistes (1543, Latin 1549, and French again 1554); Responsio ad epistolam Sadoleti (1539, French 1540); Petit traicté de la sainct cène (1541, Latin 1545); Traité des reliques (1543, Latin 1548); Excuse aux M. les Nicodemites (1544, Latin 1549); Contre la furieuse secte des Libertins (1545, Latin 1546); and De scandalis (1550, French 1550). See JeanFrançois Gilmont, Jean Calvin et le livre imprimé (Geneva: Droz, 1997), appendices III and V, 377–378, 381–384, and passim for discussion.

the early reformation in france

31

by Calvin, but the authorities crushed it by burning fourteen leaders at the stake. Their experiment was not repeated for another ten years. In the face of such harsh repression, Calvin drew the communities into a network centered on Geneva through correspondence and direct contacts with leaders who visited him. By 1550, Calvin had ties with believers in Paris, Orleans, Bourges, Poitiers, Angoulême, Rouen, Lyons, Agen, as well as the regions of Brie, Provence, Dauphiné, and Languedoc. That year Claude Baduel, regent at Nîmes, proclaimed Calvin’s guiding role in a report to Philipp Melanchthon. He announced that after Marguerite of Navarre’s death (December 1549), French believers’ only solace came from the teaching of God’s word, the Genevan church, and John Calvin, who through that piety, sound teaching, and strength of soul that you know so well, consoles us in our deepest misfortune frequently and powerfully with his letters.21

Just as Baduel’s letter signals Calvin’s ascendancy, so too it marks the decline of evangelical leadership in France. After the mid-1530s, Marguerite’s influence on her brother diminished. Few figures of the first generation remained. Gérard Roussel, bishop of Oloron since 1536, was a signal exception. He continued efforts at reform and, though embattled, attempted to transform the Mass and other rites in accordance with the evangelicals’ emphasis upon faith in Christ alone as the root of salvation, even borrowing from Calvin’s writings to do so. Nor did French evangelicals produce many new devotional works. Rather, evangelical writing took a literary turn. In poems, play, satires, and novellas the popular writers Marguerite of Navarre, François Rabelais, Clément Marot, Victor Brodeau, Nicolas Bourbon, Étienne Dolet, and Charles de Sainte-Marthe expressed their profound faith. While heaping abuse on ‘Sorbonagres,’ corrupt clerics and monks, and, sometimes, the intransigence of Genevan reformers, they gave sophisticated cultural expression to the call for ‘living faith,’ but offered no clear program for renewal. Who, then, were the clandestine Protestants turning to Calvin? The evidential base remains frustratingly weak and so cannot answer this

21

See chapter 2, note 19 for the original text in Latin, from BPF, MS 186/2, fol. 93v–97r. For a French translation and presentation, see M.-J. Gaufrès, Claude Baduel et la réforme des études au XVIe siècle (Paris: Hachette, 1880), 227–231; idem, “Lettre de Claude Baduel à Philip Melanchthon,” BSHPF 23 (1874), 575–548.

32

chapter one

question fully. The best information about the geographical distribution and social origins of French Protestants come from studies on the established Reformed churches after their rapid growth from 1555 to 1562. Trial records from the preceding period and the register of French refugees arriving at Geneva, while less accurate, reveal similar patterns. Brittany excepted, Protestant groups arose throughout France. Their subsequent heavy concentration south of the Loire is not much in evidence at this time. Regional factors seem to have been less important than the division between town and country: with important exceptions Protestantism was largely an urban phenomenon. Numerically, committed Protestants were probably far fewer than the 10 percent of the population they would reach at their peak in the 1560s. Yet, those yearning for a reform based on the gospel were certainly more numerous than those who would later join the minority Reformed Church. Which social groups were attracted?22 Trial records show a disproportionate number of elites indicted for heresy. This figure is likely inflated by the fact that accusers received a portion of the goods of those convicted. The Genevan records of religious refugees coming from France is a less biased sample, which shows that no particular social group was more or less likely to produce Protestants. While artisans were by far the most numerous and nobles the least, each class was represented proportionally. What attracted these people to the new religion? On this thorny, perhaps insoluble, problem, most scholars reject an older thesis that posited a correlation between a broadening socio-economic crisis among urban artisans and their attraction in large numbers to the reform movement. Even the leading modern proponent of this thesis, Henry Heller, stresses Calvin’s multifaceted ability to appeal to artisans as well as elites.23 Denis Crouzet has proposed that fervent expectation of the End Times and fascination with astrologers’ predictions of calamity steadily fueled religious passions in the thirty years before the savage Wars of Religion.24 Scholars have yet to assess the implications of this

22 For field-defining studies on the social history of the early French Reformation, see Natalie Zemon Davis, Society and Culture in Early Modern France (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1975) and David J. Nicholls, “Social Change and Early Protestantism in France: Normandy, 1520–62,” European Studies Review 10 (1980), 279–308. 23 Henry Heller’s socio-economic analysis is rich in detail and his argument more subtle than his critics often concede; see note 11. 24 Denis Crouzet, Les guerriers de dieu: La violence au temps des troubles de religion (vers 1525–vers 1610) (Seyssel: Champ Vallon, 1990).

the early reformation in france

33

thesis for the growth of Protestantism, but such insights reinforce the need to further consider all the political, economic, social, and mental coordinates by which contemporaries made their religious choices. Everyone saw the hands of God and Satan working in the world, but deciding whose were fashioning the religious alternatives depended upon the complex interplay of reading the book of life and the Scriptures together. Before 1555 it could hardly have been predicted that an independent Reformed Church would eventually survive without royal support. Evangelicals’ hope for a state-sponsored reformation was thwarted by events such as the defeat at Pavia, the Placards, and unfavorable international affairs. Their simple desire for another future, in which establishing the gospel did not engender violence, thus gradually faded. Calvin and the example of Geneva convinced French believers not to accept the alternative. Transforming an underground movement into a visible church, however, would require a radical change in circumstances. In 1555, just as Lutherans secured their future at Augsburg, Calvin’s party won political ascendancy in Geneva, which allowed over 200 missionary pastors to be sent to France over the next few years. That same year, the first enduring French Protestant church formed in Paris under a nobleman’s protection, a presage of the key ingredient for the rise of the Reformed Church and the coming civil war: the armed support of the nobility for the new faith.

CHAPTER TWO

MAPPING THE NAVARRIAN NETWORK

The term “Navarrian Network” does not yet exist in scholarship, nor can one find it in the sources, but the group it names did exist and no other title will serve as well. Adversaries libeled its members with several discordant epithets: hérétiques, luthériens, sacramentaires, nicodémites, and libertins spirituels.1 Members of this network understood themselves

1 For an excellent study of the confessional terminology used during the rise of the Reformed Church in Switzerland and France, see Willy Richard, Untersuchungen zur Genesis der reformierten Kirchenterminologie der Westschweiz und Frankreichs, mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Namengebung, Romanica Helvetica 57 (Bern: A. Francke, 1959). Its usefulness, unfortunately, is limited since this work relates only those terms employed by the eventual confessional ‘winners’—the ‘Catholics’ and ‘Reformed’—to vilify the opposition and to identify themselves. Missing are the tags used to identify Marguerite’s network and other middle parties, such as “nicodémites” and “libertins spirituels.” Among modern historians, Pierre Imbart de la Tour developed the first ‘scientific’ lexicon designed to go beyond the pejorative and confessional labels inherited from the Reformation era. See Imbart de la Tour, Origines 3, v–xi. Beyond the inescapable adjectives and nouns used to identify followers of major thinkers—luthériens, zwingliens, érasmiens, and fabrists (the name for followers of Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples from his Latin name Faber Stapulensis)—he employs a varied set of terms to classify the different religious personalities and movements in early Reformation France: évangélisme—évangéliques (vi and passim, which in practice he further subdivides into luthérien, érasmien, and fabrist varieties), réformisme —réformiste (x and 274–22), mystique(s) (288–303), le parti réacteur/intransigeant (212–223, 246–255), and le tiers parti (505, 599, 612). Although Imbart de la Tour largely succeeded in articulating a confessionally neutral, descriptive system of analytic terms, his use of them is often imprecise and at times inconsistent. For a clear presentation of the major confessional terms as they are commonly used by modern scholars in the French context, see Higman, La diffusion de la Réforme en France, Publications de la Faculté de Théologie de l’Université de Genève 17 (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1992), 4–5. More broadly the ‘Glossaire’ in John Miller, ed., L’Europe protestante aux XVIe et XVIIe siècles (Belin – De Boeck & Larcier, 1997), 347–359. See also: Marc Venard, “Réforme, préréforme, contre-réforme: Étude de vocabulaire chez les historiens récents de langue française” in Historiographie de la Réforme, ed. Philippe Joutard (Paris: Delachaux and Niestlé, 1977), 352–365, which provides a useful reflection on terms derived from the root ‘reformare’ used by historians since Imbart de la Tour; and Gerald Strauss, “Ideas of Reformatio and Renovatio from the Middle Ages to the Reformation,” in Handbook of European History 1400–1600: Late Middle Ages, Renaissance and Reformation, 2 vols., ed. Thomas A. Brady, Jr., Heiko A. Oberman, and James D. Tracy (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994 and 1995), vol. 2, 2–30.

36

chapter two

to be promoters of the gospel. They grounded their doctrine in and wished to live according to the Scriptures. Their approach to renewing belief and practice set them at odds with the established church at home and linked them to like-minded believers throughout Europe. Remarkably, in rare agreement, enemies and members recognized that French evangelicals had a preeminent champion: Marguerite of Navarre. Modern confusion over the role of Marguerite and her network during her brother’s thirty-two year reign (1515–1547) is more fundamental. Here we have far more than a problem of nomenclature; we have lost track of the group entirely. As prominent figures, Marguerite, Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples, and members of the Meaux circle all find their proper and prominent place in histories of early sixteenth-century France. The history of religious dissent during this period, however, has not progressed beyond analyzing the beliefs of heterodox individuals, recounting famous heresy cases, and describing the careers of a few evangelicals, of whom Marguerite, Lefèvre, and the Meaux group are the most prominent examples.2 As a result, their coordinated activity has been vastly underestimated in its range, consistency, and daring. Contemporaries testified, however, that an evangelical network allied to Marguerite was operating on a national scale thirty years before Calvin and Geneva helped to organize the Reformed Church within

The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation proves unhelpful for the purposes of this study, leaving French evangelicals caught between the cracks. In the article “Evangelical Movements,” Thomas Kauffman claims that this term should be used to describe the reforming impulse in Germany before the mid-1520s, after which time one should speak of Protestantism to describe the common traits shared by the variety of confessions that developed out of the early ‘evangelical movement.’ French evangelicals, at least, continued to appeal to their German brethren for help on the basis of their common commitment well after, and with regret for, the beginnings of confessional separation. In her article “Evangelism,” Elisabeth G. Gleason cites Imbart de la Tour for the modern definition of the term (who coined it with respect to France) and then only discusses its use by scholars of Italian religious movements. See The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, ed. Hans J. Hillerbrand (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), vol. 2, 80–83. 2 For this state of affairs in the historiography of the early Reformation in France see the introduction. In addition to the examples cited there, see Greengrass, The French Reformation, 1, 9–20, as well as the other major surveys of the period: Émile G. Léonard, Histoire général du protestantisme, 3 vols., vol. 1, La Réformation, 2nd ed. (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1980 [1961]); David J. Nicholls, “France,” in The Early Reformation in Europe, ed. Andrew Pettegree (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 120–141; Marc Venard, “Le foisonnement de la Réformation, IV: La filière française: de Meaux à Neuchâtel,” in idem, ed., De la Réforme à la Réformation (1450 –1530), vol. 7 in Histoire du Christianisme des origines à nos jours (Paris: Desclée, 1994), 830–841; Philip Benedict, “Settlements: France,” in Handbook of European History, 1400–1600, ed. Brady et al., vol. 2, 417–454.

mapping the navarrian network

37

France. Prior to the Genevan ascendancy, French evangelicals had a focus for their hopes, an advocate for their petitions, and a champion for their cause: Marguerite, the king’s sister. Their testimony invites us to explore beyond the cases of individual French evangelicals in order to establish the personnel, intentions, actions, and impact of the broad network linked to Marguerite. None of the pejorative, often vague, labels that adversaries tacked on Marguerite and her associates can serve to describe the extensive cast of nobles, royal officers, humanist scholars, prelates, and writers whom she helped to weave together into a cohesive web. Modern scholars rightly call many of them “evangelicals” since they themselves used the gospel (l’évangile) substantively and adjectivally—Evangelii precones, evangelici viri, doctrine evangelique—to characterize their fellowship and faith.3 However, it must be remembered that evangelical applies to all such believers. The members of Marguerite’s network formed a smaller vanguard within that larger body, whose full extent is difficult to ascertain. We remember Marguerite by her last, most exalted title: queen of Navarre (r. 1527–1549). Her second husband, Henri d’Albret (1503– 1555), enjoyed his royal powers in Basse-Navarre, the amputated northern stub of a small kingdom straddling the Pyrenees. This realm barely sufficed to substantiate her royal title, nor did Marguerite spend much time there. It was other qualities that made her truly regal. Her authority over numerous French domains, her natural abilities, and her special relationship with the king enabled her to exercise a degree of influence at court that was rivaled only by a few other women close to

3 For the early and frequent use of “évangélique” by Marguerite and Guillaume Briçonnet, see chapter 6, note 74. Because of its broadness, most modern scholars follow Imbart de la Tour’s definition: “Évangélisme. Entre, tous ces hommes . . . si diverse que soit leur origine, si troubles [sic for troublées] que se montrent leurs aspirations, s’est établi un principe commun: le retour à l’Évangile,” Origines 3, vi. Higman follows closely: “évangélique: terme plus approprié pour l’ensemble des réformateurs, toutes tendances confondues: tous ceux qui se basent sur l’autorité primordiale de l’évangile,” La diffusion de la Réforme en France, 1520–1565, 5. Michael A. Screech helpfully clarifies that turning to the gospel did not carry as its necessary consequence rejecting the church and embracing the Reformation: “What distinguished Évangéliques from other sixteenth-century Christians in France—both those who could accept schism and those who could not—was their personal knowledge of the Scriptures and their conception of what the Bible is and what it teaches. They were committed to Scriptural theology as a guide to life and worship.” See Michael A. Screech, Clément Marot: A Renaissance Poet discovers the Gospel. Lutheranism, Fabrism and Calvinism in the Royal Courts of France and of Navarre and in the Ducal Court of Ferrara, SMRT 54 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994), 6.

38

chapter two

Francis I (b. 1492, r. 1515–1547), including his mother, Louise of Savoy (1476–1531), and his mistress, Anne de Pisseleu, duchess d’Étampes (1508–1580), as well as a small circle of leading courtiers such as Antoine Duprat (1464–1535), Anne de Montmorency (1493–1567), and Philippe Chabot de Brion (1480–1543). Using her position to support the spread of the gospel, Marguerite was the recognized political leader of the French evangelicals. Referring to far more than a geographically limited territory, Marguerite’s title ‘Navarre,’ therefore, serves to mark symbolically the people she shepherded in France whom contemporaries maligned, scholars have failed to perceive, and we will investigate: the Navarrian Network. Having staked this claim to have recovered the existence of a lost kingdom within the old borders of France and in Reformation history, this chapter seeks to map its major features in preparation for the chronological chapters to follow, which will expound and support this thesis in detail. First, in order to allay all doubts about their existence, it will demonstrate that adversaries and allies alike recognized Marguerite’s network and considered its members to be the chief carriers of evangelical reformation within France. This external reputation matched the group’s own self-perception. Second, this chapter will discuss the broad range of sources used in this study to reconstruct their story. Third, it will survey the network’s members, their animating ideas, and principal activities.

Contemporary Signposts External Image Beginning in the early 1520s, the Faculty of Theology and the Parlement of Paris—the “Conservative Party”4—were the first to identify and fight

4 James K. Farge has carefully argued for, described, and richly documented this “Conservative Party” in three works: Biographical Register of Paris Doctors of Theology, 1500 –1536, Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, Subsidia Mediaevalia 10 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1980); Orthodoxy and Reform in Early Reformation France: The Faculty of Theology of Paris, 1500–1543, SMRT 32 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1985); Le parti conservateur au XVIe siècle: Université et Parlement de Paris à l’époque de la Renaissance et de la Réforme (Documents et inédits du Collège de France, 1992). In addition, he has edited two volumes of the Registre des procès-verbaux de la Faculté de Théologie, which are essential sources for following the Faculty of Theology’s actions. No comparable set of published sources is available for the Parlement of Paris.

mapping the navarrian network

39

the Lutheran sect in France. The doctors of theology and jurists came to believe, to their great alarm, that members of the royal court and the circle of humanist scholars gathered around Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples were conspiring to undermine the church. Bishop Guillaume Briçonnet had invited the Fabrist circle5 to carry out an intense program of religious instruction in his diocese of Meaux.6 By August 1521, a few months after their arrival, theologians from Paris were accusing preachers from Meaux of broadcasting heretical doctrines. In 1523, royal orders quashed the conservatives’ pursuit of the Meaux group and, at the same time, forbade the sale of two anti-Lutheran books written by conservative theologians. These acts made it perfectly clear to the conservatives that certain grands personnages at court were protecting the heretics.7 By the early 1530s, the faculty and many others were now convinced that it was Marguerite who was fostering the plague of Lutheran heresy afflicting the land. In June 1533 a student reported that the Paris theologians felt so helpless against the evangelical preaching of her almoner, Gérard Roussel, for whom she had secured protection at court, that they had “no other hope than in the death of the queen of Navarre, whose pregnancy is far along, or in a total and violent change of circumstances.”8 The doctors of theology certainly felt themselves embattled, but they were by no means defeated. In the following months, a few hardy doctors attempted to censure Marguerite’s first published work, Le Miroir de l’âme pécheresse. On 1 October, students at the College of Navarre—one of the leading theology schools in Paris—lampooned Marguerite as a ‘Bible-thumping’ fanatic. According to John Calvin’s vivid report, their school play opened with Marguerite peacefully spinning thread. Enter Gérard Roussel, her almoner. He grabs her and literally forces his doctrine upon her in a violent wrestling match that drives her into a frenzy. She rises, takes the gospels in hand, and “like a cruel tyrant” sets about tormenting innocent bystanders.9 In Issoudun, one of Marguerite’s domain territories and a strong center of evangelicalism,

5

For the term “Fabrists,” see note 1. Michel Veissière, L’évêque Guillaume Briçonnet (1470 –1534): Contribution à la connaissance de la Réforme catholique à la veille du Concile de Trente (Provins: Société d’Histoire et d’Archéologie, 1986), 197–201. 7 See chapter 7 and Farge, Orthodoxy, 130–132. 8 Farge translates this passage from a letter by Barthelemy Masson (Latomus), Orthodoxy, 203, quoted by V.-L. Bourrilly and Nathaniel Weiss in “Jean Du Bellay, les protestants, et la Sorbonne,” BSHPF 52 (1903), 209. 9 See Calvin’s report from the end of October 1533, in Herminjard 3, no. 438, 107, as well as a similar report by Johann Sturm, Herminjard 3, no. 432, 93–95. 6

40

chapter two

the guardian of the Franciscan house attacked Marguerite from the pulpit as a protector of heretics, saying that she deserved to be bound in a sack with deadly animals and thrown into a river, a punishment which in Roman law was reserved for parricides.10 The reputation of members of Marguerite’s network as heretics cost them heavily following the notorious Affair of the Placards. The simultaneous posting of these inflammatory texts on the night of 17–18 October 1534 on the street-corners of Paris and other major cities in the region bespoke a well-coordinated cabal. The Paris magistrates reacted immediately. They rounded up suspects and conducted speedy trials. Executions followed shortly. In January, the magistrates issued a most-wanted list of heretics who had escaped their grasp. Seventy-three names long, the roster contained many prominent figures, some of whom had previously been charged with heresy. It is clear that a few of the accused, though by no means all, were responsible for the placarding. Presumption as well as hard evidence had put the magistrates on the tracks of Marguerite’s broad circle of contacts. Among those arrested, executed, or in flight were several of Marguerite’s servants as well as members of an evangelical cell in Paris with whom she and her court were in direct contact.11 Anne de Montmorency, grand master (1526) and then constable of France (1538), allied himself with the conservative theologians and jurists; his faction led the attack against religious dissenters at court. From the 1530s onward Montmorency and Marguerite masked their mutual hatred under the thin veil of unctuous court politesse. Political necessity, namely maintaining some sway over Francis I’s mind, required them to rein in their animosity. Faithful to this truth, if not, perhaps, to the exact events, Brantôme—one of the great gossips at the end of the century—recounted that when Montmorency rose to prominence at court, he advised Francis that, if he wanted to rid his kingdom of heresy, he had best start with his sister.12

10 The Franciscans at Issoudun “n’épargnèrent pas même la reine de Navarre, qu’ils regardaient comme la protectrice zélée des novateurs. Leur gardien, Toussaint Hémard, s’emporta jusqu’à dire en chaire qu’elle méritait qu’on l’enveloppât dans un sac et qu’on la jetât à la rivière,” Louis-Hector Chandru de Raynal, Histoire de Berry depuis les temps les plus anciens jusqu’en 1789, 3 vols. (Bourges: Vermeil, 1844–1847), vol. 3, 344–345. For this undated event, Raynal cites cryptically “Franciscus Junius, In vita sua, t. I. Oper.” 11 See chapter 9 for a detailed exposition. 12 Brantôme’s account is at least somewhat credible since his grandmother and mother were members of Marguerite’s court. See “Extraits de Brantôme,” in Marguerite

mapping the navarrian network

41

By the mid-1520s, the image of the Navarrian Network came into focus abroad as well. Ambassadors, humanist scholars, students, merchants, and refugees sent news of the simmering religious conflict in France. These witnesses—some hostile, some favorable—reported much the same information: Marguerite and her allies were championing the evangelical cause at court and in society. A comment by the imperial ambassador in England, Chapuys, typifies Marguerite’s reputation among Charles V’s agents. At a loss to divine her purpose in sending a personal envoy to Henry VIII, he suggested ironically that: [Marguerite] is so good a Christian, and so well thought of by the University of Paris and other good people, that she wishes to receive the benediction of the Catholic and canonical Pope of this country [i.e., Henry VIII].13

Whether she was believed or not, Marguerite knew how to play the part of a good daughter of Rome when appropriate. Perhaps because of her suspect reputation, in 1540 the papal nuncio was struck by her piety, loving devotion to God, and desire to aid his projects.14 Among friends and allies abroad, Marguerite’s reputation as champion of the evangelical cause in France grew through active collaboration with them. After 1530, when Reformation politics became a central factor in international affairs, Marguerite and her allies at court promoted a policy of political union with those powers that had undertaken reforms and broken with Rome in order to improve the evangelical movement’s chances of success within France.15

de Navarre, Heptaméron des nouvelles de très illustre princesse Marguerite d’Angoulême, reine de Navarre, 4 vols., ed. A. Le Roux de Lincy and Anatole de Montaiglon (Paris: Eudes, 1880), vol. 1, 133–134, citing, without page references, Brantôme, Dames célèbres, in Pierre de Bourdeilles, abbé de Brantôme, Œuvres complètes, 11 vols., ed. L. Lalanne (Paris, 1864–1882). 13 Chapuys to Granvelle, 13 December 1535, Letters and Papers 9, no. 965, 324–325. The passage quoted is the editors’ English paraphrase of the original letter, for which they only give the reference “Vienna archives.” 14 After an interview with Marguerite, the Nuncio Dandino wrote to Cardinal Farnese from Melun, 26–27 December 1540: “la quale [Marguerite of Navarre] mi raccolse tanto volentieri, et dimostrò di amare, osservare et adorare tanto Nostro Signore, et tanto esser gelosa che le cose sue passino bene, et con honore, ch’io per me restai con stupore grande di vedere tanta abbundantia d’amore.” J. Lestocquoy, ed., Correspondance des nonces en France: Capodiferro, Dandino et Guidiccione, 1541–1546, Acta nuntiaturae gallicae 3 (Rome: Presses de l’Université Grégorienne; Paris: Éditions E. de Boccard, 1963), no. 5, 9. 15 In European international relations, “Reformation politics” is the proper term for naming the external policy and occasionally coordinated action of England, the German princes and cities of the Empire, the Swiss cantons, and, as we will show, on

42

chapter two

The episode occasioning Chapuys’ scoffing remark about Marguerite seeking Henry VIII’s benediction can stand as a foretaste of the Navarrians’ extensive engagement in English affairs. An important letter to Luther from Bucer at the Diet of Augsburg, 25 August 1530, reveals an equally intensive Navarrian engagement with German evangelicals. Bucer reports that their brothers in France were urging German evangelicals to settle their differences over the Eucharist. French evangelicals believed that dissent in the Empire was obstructing the progress of the gospel in France. Bucer stresses the promise of the situation in France: the king was not hostile to the gospel, and since his children had been released from captivity in Spain (July 1530) he was no longer so dependent on the good will of the pope and emperor. Bucer elaborates: Next, that most Christian heroine, the king’s sister, never fails in her duty. What is more, a great many of the nobles have found the path to truth.16

Significantly, Bucer notes that the brothers in France had sent this information and were making this request at Marguerite’s express order. In effect, Marguerite and the French evangelicals, according to what they told Bucer, believed that their success would depend in part upon

important occasions, France. “Evangelical politics” will not do, since these powers were more clearly united by their break or conflicts with Rome than by any sort of common understanding of ‘evangelical doctrine’ and its application to the ‘reformation’ of the church. Thomas A. Brady, Jr. has quite correctly restricted the term “Protestant politics” to relations between the states within the Empire. See Thomas A. Brady, Jr., Protestant Politics: Jacob Sturm (1489–1553) and the German Reformation, Studies in German Histories (New Jersey: Humanities Press, 1995). 16 “Accepimus nuper literas à fratribus ex Galliis, qui scribunt admodum feliciter apud se Evangelium gliscere, sed ita cursui ejus obstare infelix hoc nostrum dissidium, ut, nisi componatur, haud sperent unquam futurum ut Galliæ Evangelium publicitus audiant. At si contingeret illud sedari, bona eis spes est brevi fore ut Christus publicum apud ipsos obtineat. Nam Rex a veritate alienus non est et, jam recuperatis liberis, non adeò à Pontifice et Cæsare, hac quidem in causa, pendebit. Tum numquam suo officio deest Christianissima illa heroina Regis soror. Quin et procerum magnus numerus jam veritati accessit . . . Hac ergo de causa, fratres qui illic sunt et redemptionem Israelis expectant persancte nos hortati sunt, idque jussu reginæ Navarræ, ut quam liceat diligentem operam demus, ut hoc tandem dissidium sopiatur, in quo certe ultrò currentibus calcar addiderunt.” Herminjard 2, no. 305, 271–272. See also Bucer’s report to Philip of Hesse, 27 August 1530, from Augsburg, with the same news in Max Lenz, ed., Briefwechsel Landgraf Philipps des Grossmüthigen von Hessen mit Bucer, 3 vols., Publikationen aus den K. Preußischen Staatsarchiven 5, 28, and 47 (Osnabrück: Otto Zeller, 1965 [Leipzig, 1880–91]), vol. 1, no. 6, 21–25. Jourda buries this information in a note and does nothing with it, Marguerite, 161, n. 153. Similarly, Imbart 3, 526 obfuscates the whole point of Bucer’s letter to Luther.

mapping the navarrian network

43

their German brethren putting forward a united front by presenting a common confession of faith to the emperor at Augsburg. This communication between French and German evangelicals in 1530 was not the first nor the most important. From the first notice of the ‘Luther affair’ in France (1519) to the Interim (1548), members of Marguerite’s network—students, scholars, and royal officials (often acting outside their assigned duties)—were in frequent, often furtive contact with evangelicals in the Empire. Unofficial contact between evangelical “brethren” across the border was a matter of both groups seeking to understand and to support each other. Less frequent, but having much greater potential effect, were the official diplomatic overtures to the Protestant powers of Germany, orchestrated by evangelicals at the French court, after the establishment of the Schmalkaldic League (1531). On several occasions, the faction to which Marguerite belonged at court attempted to create a durable alliance between France, the German Protestants, and England. Francis I’s ever-unrequited desire to defeat Charles V and retake Milan, which necessitated a constant search for foreign mercenary troops and allies, provided the opportunity for this policy. French evangelicals argued that this alliance would address Francis’s military ambitions and impel him to favor their religious views. Marguerite and her network’s relationship with evangelicals in the Swiss cantons was the most complex and decisive of all. Many of the Francophone reformers in Switzerland, most famously Guillaume Farel and John Calvin, had passed through French evangelical circles before seeking exile. Thereafter they maintained close ties with members of Marguerite’s network. Yet, after their initial intimate collaboration, the exiles came increasingly to criticize their erstwhile companions’ lack of zeal, and competed for influence over evangelicals in France. Their parting of ways, with tensions appearing as early as the years of the Meaux reform and escalating from the mid-1530s onward, is a central theme in the history of the Navarrian Network. Finally, Francis I, the chief arbiter of the Navarrians’ fate in France, had no doubts about Marguerite’s own ‘orthodoxy,’ which he construed as unwavering loyalty to himself.17 Nevertheless, Francis I recognized that his sister harbored heterodox individuals who were likely targets

17 Such was Francis I’s answer to Anne de Montmorency when the latter accused his sister of being a heretic. See Brantôme’s report cited in note 12.

44

chapter two

of heresy accusations. In 1542, he ordered the Parlement of Bordeaux to transfer any future heresy cases brought against her servants in their courts to his privy council.18 Though Francis had by then decided to root out public heretics, he was not going to allow potential inquests to tarnish his beloved sister’s honor and consequently diminish his own majesty. The great challenge for Marguerite and her entourage was to convince Francis I that the only reformation that he would ever consider—a royal, Gallican one—should have at its heart the principles of their evangelical doctrine. Self-Identity When Claude Baduel, rector of the University of Nîmes, wrote to Philipp Melanchthon in 1550, it was to announce the close of one era and the opening of another: It happened that the queen’s [ Marguerite’s] favor for me and my compatriots, though not completely withheld, was nevertheless lessened by certain wicked men, whose names you can guess, so that she no longer conducted herself as she had before. At last, not long ago, having been summoned by the Lord, she was snatched away from this our earthly life. Now, we here are plunged into the greatest confusion in all our affairs, especially in the matter of religion. In this regard, we have only as much solace as is brought to us by the teaching of God’s word or the Genevan church, which is near by. That church’s remarkable piety and purity shines forth with its most clear light and splendor into our city to illuminate the oppressive darkness in which we have been enveloped. In truth, John Chambard [Calvin] whom I knew previously at Strasbourg when with Bucer, through his piety, sound teaching, and strength

18

“Le 30 décembre 1542, M. le président Brinon, retourné de la cour, a dit et déclaré qu’à son partir le président Montelon, garde des sceaux de France, lui avoit dit que le Roi entendoit que si aucuns personnages, serviteurs de la reine de Navarre, estoient chargés de crime d’hérésie que la cour n’en entreprist aucune cognoissance, mais qu’elle renvoiast audit seigneur et a MM. de son Conseil privé,” Jean de Métivier, Chronique du Parlement de Bordeaux, ed. Arthur de Brezetz and Jules Delpit, 2 vols., Publications de la Société des Bibliophiles de Guyenne (Bordeaux: Société des Bibliophiles, 1886–1887), 273. Francis thus gave her, in effect, the ultimate level of immunity. Normally, cases evoked from the parlements went to his Grand Conseil, a formal, royal high court staffed with jurists that met ad hoc, traveled with the court, and, generally, was an instrument of his will. His privy council was not a court, but rather his inner circle of hand-picked advisors.

mapping the navarrian network

45

of soul, which you know so well, consoles us in our deepest misfortune frequently and zealously with his letters.19

Claude Baduel was announcing to the German Protestant world that, in effect, the Navarrian Network’s functional life had died with Marguerite. Facing persecutions unleashed by the new king, Henry II, Baduel felt that no worldly hope was left to French evangelicals except in the ‘shining’ example of Calvin and Geneva. Indeed, he himself would emigrate there the next year. Until his departure, Baduel was an important member of the network. In the same letter, he recalls how Melanchthon’s recommendations had convinced Marguerite some sixteen years earlier to finance his education and subsequently to choose him as the first rector of the new University of Nîmes. Despite his assertion to Melanchthon that Marguerite’s zeal had recently diminished, when he wrote to a colleague the previous year (1549) Baduel had still been able to claim that she would support his application for a teaching post at the Protestant Academy of Lausanne.20 Thirty years earlier the network had knit together and its group consciousness had quickened. The letters from Marguerite, Bishop Guillaume Briçonnet, Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples, Gérard Roussel, and others from the Meaux group to each other, Guillaume Farel, as well as their brethren in Southern Germany and the Swiss Cantons leave no doubt about their collective action and sense of solidarity with an international evangelical movement. One of the lesser lights of the Meaux group, Nicolas Le Sueur, lauds Marguerite’s leadership in an otherwise critical report to Farel in 1524.

19 “Accessit etiam quod voluntas reginae non illa quidem a me aut meis civibus fuit alienata sed tamen a quibusdam impiis hominibus quos tu intelligere potes ita immutata ut ea non amplius esset quae ante fuerat ea tandem nobis erepta est nuper ex hac vita a domino [95 v.] evocata. Nunc iis in locis summa in confusione rerum omnium versamur praecipue religionis in qua quidem tantum solatiis habemus quantum aut doctrina verbi dei aut ecclesia Gebenensis a nobis non ita remota nobis affert cujus ecclesiae insignis pietas et sanitas in ea civitate ita elucet ut durisissimas tenebras quibus hic sumus circumfusi clarissimo lumine suo splendoreque illustret. Ioannis quidem Chambardus quem Argentinae apud Bucerum aliquando cognovi ea pietate doctrina spiritus virtute quam tu nosti nos in maximis calamitatibus suis literis frequenter graviterque [read gnaviterque?] consolatur.” BPF, MS 186/2, fols. 93v–97r, fol. 95r–v for quotation (no. 105 in the original Avignon manuscript of Baduel’s letters). 20 Baduel to Reginaldo (Renaud d’Alen) [1549] on his plans to go to Lausanne: “Ea in re me etiam Regina Navarrae sua authoritate et commendatione iuvaret,” BPF, MS 186/1, fols. 18r–19r (Avignon MS, no. 21).

46

chapter two

Deploring that persecution had kept the more enlightened among them chained to the “Pharisaical yoke,” he relates: But above all, one person, the most Christian and most illustrious duchess, sticks with us in order to secure for us the king’s favor. Her faith has been preserved, which, as James declares, is known through deeds [cf. James 2:14–24].21

Two years later, after the Meaux group had returned from their exile during the king’s captivity, Pierre Toussain—formerly a disciple of Erasmus, at that time an outspoken evangelical at the French court, and subsequently a Reformed pastor in Switzerland—reported to Oecolampadius at Basel in a similar vein that while Briçonnet, Lefèvre, and Roussel lacked spirit, Marguerite was filled with zeal for the gospel: I have spoken frequently with the duchess of Alençon . . . We have often discussed how to promote the gospel of Christ. Spreading the gospel is her sole wish, but not just hers, it is the king’s desire as well; nor does their mother [Louise of Savoy] oppose their efforts.22

Marguerite herself acknowledged early on that she and those whom she was protecting were “united in the same spirit and same faith” with those in Strasbourg and beyond who sought to disseminate “the word of truth.”23 Members of the network made similar declarations during the thirty years between their heady beginnings at Meaux to Baduel’s announcement of its dark hour after Marguerite’s death. The Navarrians’ sense of common purpose, of solidarity with foreign evangelicals, and of fervent but nervous, often disappointed hopes for the propagation of the gospel, 21 “Qui sunt ex nostris illuminatiores, adhuc pharisiaco jugo subduntur . . . Una pre ceteris nobis relicta et christianissima et serenissima duce, quæ nobis regium conciliet favorem; apud quam istec reposita fides quam testatur Jacobus ex operibus notam.” 15 May [1524], Herminjard 1, no. 102, 217–218. 22 “Clarissimam Alenconiæ Ducem sum sæpe alloquutus . . . Multum sumus confabulati de promovendo Christi Evangelio, quod solum est illi in votis, nec illi solum verum etiam Regi ipsi, nec horum conatibus refragatur mater.” 26 July [1526], Herminjard 1, no. 181, 446. 23 In her letter to Sigismund von Hohenlohe, 6 March 1526, Marguerite describes the Meaux group whom he had supported at Strasbourg as “ceux qu’unissent un même esprit et une même foi,” and voices the hope “qu’avec votre secours la parole de vérité sera entendue.” Herminjard 1, no. 171, 421. In a similar vein, Roussel, speaking as a representative of the Meaux group specifically and French evangelicals generally, had expressed their solidarity with the evangelical goals of Oecolampadius and other reformers outside France; 24 August 1524, Herminjard 1, no. 118, 274–278.

mapping the navarrian network

47

“the word of truth,” is vivid. In keeping with the Apostle James’ dictum invoked by Le Sueur, the principal task in the chapters to follow is to demonstrate what such sentiments amounted to in deeds.

Sources for Reconstructing the Navarrian Network Reconstituting a network whose members came from many segments of French society presents special difficulties. Unlike the Conservative Party led by the Faculty of Theology and Parlement of Paris, the Navarrian Network had no institutional structure and thus left no corporate records. To locate the network we must start by assembling the known evidence about Marguerite and other major figures like the Du Bellay brothers and Gérard Roussel. We can then measure the broad extent of this evangelical network by tracing the connections between these leaders and a host of less well-known figures. The primary sources available for reconstructing this history are a varied, intriguing, and problematic set of documents. Letters, financial registers, notarial records, marriage contracts, wills, journals, heresy trial minutes, royal edicts, and, not least, religious books provide differing but complementary information. Royal edicts, account books, and legal documents allow us to establish the fiscal and administrative powers that Marguerite, chief among others, exercised. Letters, book dedications, and even the humble payment receipt exhibit the ties of authority, patronage, or fraternity that connected Navarrians. More importantly, letters and dedications may also reveal their collective mind, their specific projects, and conflicts with adversaries. Books attest to their doctrines as well as to deeds undertaken, for, given the laws prohibiting heterodox works, publishing evangelical tracts amounted to daring action. Many an author, printer, bookseller, or reader suffered death in France for trading in illegal ideas. Mere ownership of heretical books was evidence damning enough to send one to the stake. Writing and publishing evangelical treatises were thus dangerous acts that necessarily constituted bold overtures in the public battle over religion. The books of evangelicals thus provide crucial evidence about their deeds as well as their ideas. Rich as these sources are, large gaps in the records often reduce us to silence when we try to recount the network’s history as a continuous narrative. However, there is sufficient evidence to piece together several

48

chapter two

important “action sequences”24 from the beginning of the Meaux experiment (1521–1525) to the early years of Henry II’s reign (1547–1559). While each sequence only describes a short segment of the network’s total action, they allow us to calculate trajectories to other events and actors attested in sources about which we have less information. When combined and compared, these strands of evidence allow us to approximate the group’s total activity. Correspondence Marguerite of Navarre’s correspondence is one of the richest resources for this study.25 Relatively abundant—over 1400 letters are known, of which roughly half are extant—it is a revealing record, yet most often in roundabout ways. It has survived very unevenly, with a great proportion of the extant letters pertaining to administrative matters, a pattern easily explained. Marguerite regularly asked recipients to burn missives from her and herself consigned ones she received to the flames when they concerned sensitive topics.26 While contemporaries worried mainly

24 I borrow this heuristic term from the sociologist Robert Wuthnow: “Action sequences . . . refer to the behavior of culture producers and consumers and the decisions of patrons, censors, political leaders, and others who affect the behavior of culture producers and their audiences. These actions often remain shrouded in the historical record, or are too idiosyncratic to be amenable to systematization. Yet the very concept of action sequences serves as an important placeholder: it reminds us of the importance of human agency, even if that agency occurs within the constraints of institutional structures, and it reminds us that cultural innovations do not emerge full-blown all at once but are the result of years and decades, and for this reason have a sequential effect on their own development.” Communities of Discourse: Ideology and Social Structure in the Reformation, the Enlightenment, and European Socialism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989), 7. For the purpose of this study, an action sequence is an episode or a discrete set of events that we can reconstruct from primary sources. In them, one observes members of the Navarrian Network articulating their ‘cultural ideas’ or evangelical ‘discourse’ as well as attempting to implement them in order to reshape the social and political order. Pace Wuthnow, they are amenable to interpretative analysis if not to “systematization.” In turn, they serve as the narrative strings for weaving a larger history. 25 The introduction to appendix A presents an overview of the survival rate of her correspondence and discusses its complicated editing situation. There also follows a list of addition and corrections by V.-L. Saulnier and the present author to Pierre Jourda’s Répertoire de la correspondance de Marguerite d’Angoulême. 26 Three examples of Marguerite’s efforts to cover her tracks survive: 1) Marguerite of Navarre to Francis I [Argentan or Alençon, February 1521], “Ennatendant set heur de vous povoyr voyr et parler a vous syre le desir que jenne me presse de tres humblemant vous supplier que sy ce ne vous est ennuy le me ferre dire par ce porteur . . . sy vous plet

mapping the navarrian network

49

about the privacy of their messages in transit, Marguerite had the additional concern of ensuring that written evidence did not fall into the wrong hands after reception.27 It is thus no surprise that Marguerite’s letters were often merely bills of credence asking the recipient to trust its bearer, who would deliver her message orally. Many important communications thus flew from the lips of couriers or the tongues of flames into the dumb air. In the letters that do survive much of what remains are but veiled allusions to the substantive issues. This deliberate obfuscation requires us to infer meanings and intentions—an admittedly dangerous procedure—by comparing her letters with the extant reports of those to whom she opened her mind. Her secrecy is itself testimony to the pressures she faced in the battles over church and state. Moreover, her reluctance to leave written records is fully comprehensible when one considers the dozens whom she supported who were harassed, jailed, fined, chased abroad, banished, or executed on charges of heresy.28 ensevelir mes lettres au feu et la parolle en silense aultrement vous renderyes: ‘Pis que morte ma doloreuse vie / Vivant en vous de la seule esperance, / Dont le savour me couse l’assurance, / Sans que james de vous je me deffie.” Génin 2, 26 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 1126); 2) Marguerite of Navarre to Jean de Frotté [7 April 1540], Mont-de-Marsan: “Frotte. J’ay receu la lectre que du xxvie jour de mars m’avez escripte avecques la billet qui estoit dedans qui m’a esté bien grant plaisir, et apres l’avoir lue je l’ay mis au feu,” in Pierre Bruyère, “Trois lettres inédites de Marguerite de Navarre,” Société historique et archéologique de l’Orne 112 (1993) 146–147 (un-catalogued, appendix A, no. 10069); 3) Marguerite of Navarre to Guillaume Feau, sr. d’Izernay, 30 December [1542], “P.S. J’ay bruslé vostre lettre.” Génin 1, 375–379, 379 ( Jourda, Répertoire, no. 912). 27 This may be one reason why we have, with one important exception, no dossiers of letters received by Marguerite and none of her secretaries’ minute books or copies of outgoing correspondence. The one telling exception is BnF F.fr. 11495, which is a fair copy of her epistolary exchange with Guillaume Briçonnet. The originals are lost and no other copies of these letters are known, though other copies were made and circulated at the time. Marguerite wanted to preserve their exchange for future reference. See Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, 2–3, and chapter 7 for further discussion. Portions of Marguerite’s correspondence may also have been destroyed through misfortune. Some of Marguerite’s papers may have perished, as did Gérard Roussel’s, in the fires at Pau (1716) and at Lescar (1787), which, Paul J. Landa notes “destroyed most of the records pertaining to the religious history of [Béarn]. Only a few archival documents survive today.” See his “The Reformed theology of Gerard Roussel, bishop of Oloron (1536–1555), based upon a critical edition of his Familiere exposition du simbole, de la loy et oraison dominicale en forme de colloque and his Forme de visite de diocese (c. 1548),’ ” Ph.D. Thesis, Vanderbilt University, 1976, 53 n. 2. Almost all the papers of her last secretary, Jean de Frotté, were destroyed during the French Revolution. See La Ferrière-Percy, Livre de dépenses, 2–3. 28 The casualty list is extensive, as will become apparent in the course of this study.

50

chapter two

We can use her correspondence in several ways despite these limitations. The list of her correspondents and people mentioned in the letters points to the circles with whom she worked. Analysis of her relationship with these people allows us to locate the core members of her active network. Even so, this list is not all-inclusive. Some important figures in her circle, known from other sources, are never named in her extant letters. The letters also reveal in a general way her network’s activities, although Marguerite and her correspondents rarely recorded in letters their plans or principles in matters of state and religion. Only in her early exchange of letters with Bishop Guillaume Briçonnet (1521–1524), does Marguerite broach such matters with relative freedom. Apart from that exchange, we have to piece together from other sources her extensive projects to promote a religio-political agenda. The reports of diplomats and reformers to others reveal her repeated attempts to cooperate with German Protestants and the English during the 1530s and 1540s, yet, in the few dozen letters surviving between her and them, they rarely discuss these projects openly. Similarly, the correspondence of the members of the Navarrian Network is meager. Most curiously, there are hardly any letters extant from the Meaux group after their return to France in 1526. From after that date only four letters to Roussel, three from Caroli, one from d’Arande, and none from Lefèvre survive. Indeed, most of the letters that remain from the Meaux group before 1527 come from the papers of Farel and other erstwhile colleagues in Switzerland and Strasbourg. A.-J. Herminjard drew upon such collections to establish his rich Correspondance des réformateurs (1509–1546). So monumental was the scholarship of these nine volumes that they have come to dominate our picture of the early Reformation in France. Yet, useful as they are, they have been a barrier to further progress. Their source-base is skewed toward Swiss repositories and historical developments, especially to the work of Farel, Calvin, and Viret, and so they are less helpful for understanding the situation in France in the 1530s and 1540s, when French and Swiss evangelicals increasingly diverged over doctrine and tactics. Our evidence of the Navarrian Network after 1526 comes from further afield. The letters of agents such as Pierre Toussain, Claude Baduel, and Jean de Boyssoné provide illuminating but irregular information. Their correspondence has proved disappointing given Marguerite’s wellestablished patronage of poets and scholars. Indeed, the letters of French

mapping the navarrian network

51

literary figures do not seem to have survived in great numbers, nor have they been edited assiduously when compared with the monumental editions devoted to humanists and reformers, even of the second tier, of other nations.29 Thus, even at second hand, the correspondence of Erasmus, Luther, Bucer, Melanchthon, Farel, Calvin, Zwingli, and others provide important evidence about the situation in France and the role of Marguerite and her agents. The edited correspondence of ambassadors and major political figures offers the most abundant information about the Navarrian Network.30 The Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic of the Reign of Henry VIII, the Correspondance des nonces en France, and the dispatches of ambassadors Marillac, Jean and Guillaume Du Bellay, Guillaume Pellicier, and François de Tournon are the only sources that allow us to follow the network’s activities with any continuity.31 Serial Sources This rubric covers a multitude of official and institutional documents. Some of Marguerite’s household accounts have been edited, providing employment information on members of her court, which was one branch of the network. The official records of heresy trials, book seizures, and other police actions—however much tainted by the views of the official accusers—are among the few sources that reveal what doctrines French evangelicals

29 Few major French literary figures of the first half of the sixteenth century, apart from Marguerite of Navarre, Guillaume Budé, François Rabelais, Étienne Dolet, and Jean de Boyssoné, have had their correspondence inventoried or published. The list of editions of correspondence for the Empire is long, including the letters of not just Erasmus, Luther, Melanchthon, Bucer, Zwingli, Calvin, and Beza, but also Oecolampadius, Farel, the Blarer brothers, Julius Pflug, Beatus Rhenanus, the Amerbach family, Wolfgang Capito, Hubert Languet, Johannes Sleidan, and many more. 30 Two crucial lacunae among the diplomatic sources for the reign of Francis I are his own letters and those of Anne de Montmorency. Editing their correspondence, the bulk of which is housed at the BnF and Musée de Condé, Chantilly, has evidently been too daunting a task. Francis Decrue drew upon these letters extensively for his study, Anne de Montmorency, 2 vols. (Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1885–1889; repr. Geneva: Mégariotis Reprints, 1978). 31 Jourda consulted these edited sources to establish his Répertoire of Marguerite’s letters, but he only partially exploited their content in writing his biography, often ignoring material about her diplomatic activities that did not fit his thesis.

52

chapter two

taught and how their listeners received them. This study relies upon several such documents published or analyzed in the Bulletin de la Société de l’Histoire du Protestantisme Français. Also indispensable are the collections of the official acts of Francis I’s reign. The Catalogue des actes de François Premier presents a quasi-complete listing of the edicts, personnel, itinerary, spending, and extraordinary taxes of Francis’s government. It offers information on many of Marguerite’s appointees to royal office. The full texts of a selection of Francis’s official actes through 1539 can be found in the Ordonnances de François Premier. Regrettably, very few records survive from the nerve centers of Francis I’s regime: his high court (Grand Conseil) and privy council.32 We have to rely on what has been culled from the archives in secondary literature for the records of the several parlements, since no editions have been devoted to the registers of their various judicial or executive activities. The registers of the Faculty of Theology of Paris have been edited by Du Plessis d’Argentré, J.-A. Clerval, Léopold Delisle, and James K. Farge. Along with Farge’s studies of its doctors, these editions provide a thorough record of this pillar of Gallican orthodoxy. Chronicles and Histories The journals of Louise of Savoy, Nicolas Versoris, Pierre Driart, and the ‘Bourgeois of Paris’ are exceptional sources, offering vivid accounts of events. Most importantly, even though their authors were members of the elite, they open up the world of public opinion. The people’s views on war, taxes, deaths, births, marriages, portents and miracles, public processions, festivals, royal entries, acts of iconoclasm, executions, plague, famine, and fire all figure prominently in their entries. Indeed, these highly charged accounts reflect how the public experienced the increasing burden of royal government and the growth of religious dissent. Notably, these journals testify that Parisians were particularly disturbed by the threat of heresy. The great battles between conservatives and evangelicals were in large part fought to gain public opinion. Before the sixteenth century was out, the confessional victors—the Catholics and Calvinists—battled to retell and interpret the events of

32 Noël [ Joseph-Marie] Valois, Étude historique sur le conseil du roi, introduction à l’inventaire des arrêtes du conseil d’État (Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1886), cxxxi, cxl–cxlii.

mapping the navarrian network

53

Francis’s reign in various histories, memoirs, and biographies. Brantôme’s several collective biographies, Johannes Sleidan’s Histoire de l’estat de la religion, Jean Crespin’s Histoire des martyrs, Theodore Beza’s Life of Calvin (Ioannis Calvini vita) and Icones, the Histoire ecclésiastique (written at Geneva and attributed to Beza), and Florimond de Raemond’s response to the latter, Histoire de la naissance . . . de l’hérésie de ce siècle, are but the most prominent examples. Marguerite and her immediate circle are discussed in many of these works from their different perspectives. On the other hand, though we might expect ‘insider’ source histories like the Mémoires of Guillaume and Martin Du Bellay or the Histoire de Béarn et Navarre (1517–1572) by Jeanne d’Albret’s court historiographer, Nicolas de Bordinave,33 to provide vital information, they contain no substantive mention of Marguerite, Gérard Roussel, or the efforts of the Du Bellays to bring about a concord with the German Protestants. In one way or another and in order to suit the collective memory of the confessional ‘winners,’ all these Catholic and Protestant historians appropriated, framed, and thus obscured the story of the French evangelicals’ unsuccessful reforming project. Four hundred years later, Lucien Febvre demanded that historians throw off the blinders of confessional historiography.34 However, since we cannot avoid consulting such partisan accounts, we must establish an index of their reliability by comparing their treatments of events with primary sources. Literary Sources Over one thousand religious writings were published in French during Francis I’s reign. Many of them were evangelical and these works constitute an important basis for this study. Rare and often anonymous, the numbers, content, and importance of the heterodox books in this corpus have long remained obscure. Over one hundred years of bibliographical scholarship has begun to clear up this picture by establishing the printer and in some cases the author of many clandestine works.35 33 The Histoire de Béarn et Navarre is wholly devoid of interest for this study. Composed at the order of Queen Jeanne d’Albret and attributed to Nicolas de Bordenave, her former court historiographer, who completed it circa 1591, it remained in manuscript until it was edited by Paul Raymond (Paris: Renouard, 1873). 34 “Une question mal posée,” in Au cœur religieux, 90–95. 35 Until Francis Higman’s landmark 1996 bibliography, Piety and the People: Religious Printing in French, 1511–1551, which brings together the fruits of this scholarship,

54

chapter two

A significant portion of evangelical writings were penned in manuscript or published by members of the Navarrian Network, including Marguerite herself.36 This study aims to show that these books constituted a coherent body of literature through which Navarrians intended to promote their political and religious agenda. Including an extensive number of biblical translations (69 editions), over 560 imprints—most of them between eight and eighty pages—originated within the Navarrian Network.37 This literary corpus is significant in four regards. First, several works were polemical, interpreting current events in order to bend popular opinion to the Navarrian position. The Sentence de frere Jehan Guibert (Paris: Simon Du Bois, 1527) advertised that this publicly known companion of the Meaux group had been acquitted of heresy charges. Conservatives responded with La grande Irrision des Lutheriens de Meaulx (1528). Polemical tracts like these, as is well known, played a major role in forming public opinion during the German Reformation and later during the French Wars of Religion.38 The Navarrian Network’s attempt to use pamphlets to shape public opinion will be taken up in chapters 7, 8, and 10. Second, the Navarrian Network helped introduce French people to the religious ideas that were stirring German lands. Nathaniel Weiss, W. G. Moore, Francis Higman, and others have established that 21 works by Luther (in 44 editions) reached France in translation before 1551.39 The focus of this study allows us to see that 16 of these 21 translations were first published by printers in the Navarrian Network. Their publication of this ‘anonymous’ Luther was a significant part of their publishing program. Third, two dozen of the Navarrian books are catechetical guides explaining basic Christian belief and practice for the laity. Notably, these tracts engage the issues for which evangelical preachers were most often accused of heresy: the sacraments, indulgences, the cult of the saints, including his own extensive contribution, the profile of vernacular religious literature in French had never been measured systematically. 36 See appendix B for a reference list of these works and a discussion of the criteria used for classifying a work as emanating from the Navarrian Network. 37 This figure, which includes first editions and reprints, are derived from an analysis of appendix Bl: “The Books of the Navarrian Network.” 38 For the latter, see Robert O. Lindsay and John Neu, French Political Pamphlets 1547–1648: A Catalog of Major Collections in American Libraries (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1969). 39 Higman, Piety, L 79–L 122. Anonymous translated excerpts of Luther appeared in over a dozen other texts noted by Higman.

mapping the navarrian network

55

and devotion to the Virgin Mary. Since the Navarrians never published a formal creed, surveying these works allows us to establish the major tenets of their doctrines as well as to assess the disputed question of the consistency of their religious thought. Fourth, while many of these tracts propound social and political doctrines in chief obedience to religious and secular authorities, trial records reveal that the lay audiences of the network’s preachers and books sometimes took violent action over religious issues despite admonitions to the contrary. Close analysis of these texts in their social context provides illuminating evidence about the reception of the Navarrian message. Fifth, as shown in chapter 10, starting in the 1530s, members of Marguerite’s network produced a huge number of literary works to advance the evangelical cause, whose scope and importance has hardly been realized. In addition to printed books, a few manuscripts provide significant information about Navarrian doctrine and goals. The first, BnF MS Fonds français 419, contains the Familiere exposition and the Somme de visite de diocese of Marguerite’s almoner, Bishop Gérard Roussel.40 Although these two tracts never made it to print as intended, they are our best evidence about the episcopal reform program he implemented in the diocese of Oloron. When compared with the few traces of his preaching at Meaux and Paris, Roussel is seen to have adopted a strong and consistent approach to the issues of liturgical reform and catechesis and the practical problems of implementation. A second manuscript, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal réserve 5096, offers an inside look at the views of the circle immediately around Marguerite. This beautifully illuminated work, the Initiatoire instruction en la religion chrestienne, contains an anonymous translation of two catechisms by the Lutheran Johannes Brenz and an evangelical treatise on confession. Compiled for the queen circa 1529, Roussel and Simon Du Bois are thought to have been involved in its creation. Indeed, this instructional compilation closely resembles Roussel’s texts from the 1540s in form and content, especially in several programmatic changes made in the Brenz catechisms.41 40

Paul J. Landa edited these texts as a principal part of his dissertation cited in note 27. They will be discussed below in chapter 11. 41 The first of its three parts is a catechism by Johannes Brenz in translation and has been edited by Marc Venard, “Un catéchisme offert à Marguerite de Navarre,” BSHPF 142

56

chapter two

In sum, the Navarrians’ books, both in print and in manuscript, show the hitherto unrecognized public face of their program for the renewal of the faith, their socially conservative ideology, and their forceful apologetics.

Dramatis Personae To establish a credible profile of Marguerite and her network, we need to answer some elementary questions: What qualities enabled Marguerite to become a leader of this network? What in her religious views and character prompted her to support evangelicals? Who were the members of the network? What platform did they share? The Evangelicals’ Champion Official Powers and Personal Sway Marguerite’s curriculum vitae centers on one fact: she was the sole sibling of Francis I, king of France from 1515 to 1547. As the king’s beloved sister she enjoyed explicit powers and much implicit authority. Yet her kinship ties alone do not fully explain the considerable influence she exerted during her adult life. She was, in addition, intelligent, well educated, a gifted writer, and an able negotiator of court politics and foreign relations. Moreover, she had—if not blazing charisma—at least a warmth that won her the trust and respect of many people.42 Most important in this regard was her love for her brother. She filled her letters to him with declarations of her absolute devotion. After his death she expressed an extreme sense of loss in her La navire ou consolation du Roi François Ier à sa sœur Marguerite.43 During his lifetime Marguerite and Francis were linked by bonds of affection that made her a potent advocate at court. Birth, marriage, and royal favor bestowed prodigious powers on Marguerite. She was born on 11 April 1492 to Louise of Savoy and Charles, (1996), 5–32. The second section contains a second, larger catechism by Brenz; the third constitutes an important evangelical tract on auricular confession. See chapter 8. 42 See the glowing reports of Marguerite’s abilities and greatness of soul by the duke of Norfolk, Letters and Papers 15, no. 223, 79–80; Pierre Toussain, as in note 57; and the aforementioned papal nuncio, as in note 14. 43 Ed. Robert Marichal (Paris: Librairie Ancienne Honoré Champion, 1956).

mapping the navarrian network

57

count of Angoulême, in the château of their duchy.44 Her fortune was linked to her brother’s from his birth two years later until the time she died as queen of Navarre on 21 December 1549, at the château d’Odos in the county of Bigorre, near the Pyrenees.45 Marguerite’s political worth before her brother came to power was determined by the French crown’s control over and policy towards cadet branches of the royal line and the most powerful noble families. French kings had long sought to graft collateral, princely bloodlines into the royal house through marriage. From the time of Charles VIII to Henry IV, there were four major houses (races) of princes of the royal blood. In order of succession to the crown, they were the Orléans (whose Louis succeeded his cousin Charles VIII), Angoulême, Alençon, and Bourbon. A further strategy for augmenting royal power was to marry heirs of the royal house to those of the several still independent seigneuries in the kingdom. At the turn of the sixteenth century, five families controlled these territories: Brittany, Angoulême, Alençon, Bourbon, and Albret. Marguerite’s status rose together with her brother’s with the accession of Louis XII in 1498. Francis stood next in line for the throne should Louis XII die without a legitimate son. Recognizing this likelihood, in 1514 Louis married Francis to his eldest daughter, Claude, heiress to Brittany through her mother. Francis’s accession the following year reunited his ducal territories, Angoulême and Valois, to the crown. Claude’s Brittany would later be incorporated through their son, Henry II. On 2 December 1509, while Francis was still only heir-apparent, Marguerite was married to Charles d’Alençon, second in line for the throne.46 This duke was also the chief claimant to the independent county of Armagnac. The royal house, Angoulême, and Albret had also staked rival claims on this inheritance. With Marguerite’s marriage to Charles, Francis gave up his own pretensions and after his accession he quashed all other claims, thus securing the Alençons’ right to Armagnac. Marguerite and Charles, who died on 11 April 1525, had no children.47 Since he was the last legitimate male of his house, Alençon and Armagnac escheated to the crown, though Francis I allowed Marguerite

44

Jourda, Marguerite 1, 3. As recorded in the Bible of Claude Régin, Marguerite’s master of requests and subsequently bishop of Oloron, copied in BnF F.fr. 2751, fol. 2r. 46 Jourda, Marguerite 1, 34. 47 Jourda, Marguerite 1, 105. A notarized copy of Charles’ will is in BnF Clairambault 324, fol. 283r. 45

58

chapter two

to keep the usufruct of them during her life. When she married Henri d’Albret, king of Navarre, in January 1527, she associated these two territories with his extensive holdings in the south.48 Marguerite thus came to share control over three of the four major independent seigneuries in the kingdom, Alençon, Armagnac, and Albret. Early in his reign, Francis gave her in apanage the duchy of Berry as well as the county and city of Bourges, which she ruled independently of her husbands.49 Francis I also gave important military commands in the provinces to her spouses, naming Charles d’Alençon governor of Normandy and Henri d’Albret governor of Aquitaine. She exercised or participated with her husbands in the rule of a swath of lands in western France, starting in the north with Normandy (including Alençon), passing southeast through Bourges and Berry, then south and west from Rodez, Foix, Bigorre, Béarn, Basse-Navarre, Albret, and Armagnac, over which the military governorship of Aquitaine extended. Marguerite and her husbands had rights over the nomination of administrative officers, received income from rents and other seigniorial dues, and had extensive police powers. These powers brought with them prestige and authority to sway other corporations and judicial bodies. Marguerite’s proximity to the crown gave her access to other political roles. Contemporary poets highlighted her special place when they called Louise of Savoy, Francis I, and Marguerite the “Royal Trinity” during the early years of ‘their’ reign. Reports by ambassadors reveal that this image was grounded in fact. In 1525 the trinity’s operations were spectacular: while Louise ruled as regent, Marguerite led the delegation to Charles V in Spain to negotiate her brother’s release after he had

48 The marriage contract of Marguerite and Henri d’Albret was signed on 3 January 1527; see Jourda, Marguerite 1, 146. They had but one child who survived to adulthood, Jeanne d’Albret. She would eventually marry Antoine de Bourbon, heir to the Bourbon line. After the extinction of the Valois line (Henry II’s four sons, Francis II, Charles IX, Henry III, and the duke d’Anjou, all died without male heir), this couple bore the future Henry IV who brought with him to the crown the independent seigneuries of Armagnac, Albret, and Bourbon, effectively uniting to the crown the remaining major independent seigneuries within France. 49 An apanage territory was a part of the royal domain whose title, administration, and usufruct were typically given by the king to a younger son. The gift was heritable, like royal blood, through the male line. If the male line ended, the territory then reverted to royal administration. When such lands were given to female relatives, they automatically returned to the crown at their death, irrespective of husband or children.

mapping the navarrian network

59

been captured at the battle of Pavia. Over the course of Francis’s reign, she was a frequent participant in his privy council, whose membership circulated among a small group of leading courtiers. In this nerve center of the monarchy, Francis’s councillors had charge of all diplomatic correspondence and consulted him almost daily on all major matters of state. While Marguerite was eminent at court she had a powerful voice in affairs and greater access to the lines of communication that sustained royal decision-making. Diplomats considered her to be able, informed, and, when close to her brother, very influential. In 1544, an Italian ambassador reported that he thought her the “best woman in the world” because of her charm, political tact, and her understanding of religion.50 Ambassadors whom she favored often took her advice about advancing their causes. Most remarkable was the case of England. After 1534, she regularly instructed English ambassadors how to strengthen relations between their two masters. In domestic affairs, Marguerite helped to fill a large number of lucrative and powerful posts. These included Francis I’s financial, military, and judicial offices, the ranks of his household servants, and, not least, after the Concordat of Bologna, the prelacies of the realm.51 Marguerite’s recommendation, especially for an office or prelacy within one of her domains, often ensured the candidate’s selection. As the following chapters will show in more detail, her role as king’s councillor and broker of patronage were central to the creation and operation of her network. Beyond these overtly political functions, Marguerite had responsibilities and rights as a noblewoman. One might characterize them as domestic roles since nobles—a socio-economic class from a modern perspective—regarded themselves as an extended family. Yet they fully recognized that every major life-event—birth, marriage, and death—had important political consequences. In Marguerite’s case, family politics both limited her ability as well as provided her with opportunities to lead her network. What, then, was Marguerite’s domestic role in the dynastic politics of child-rearing and marriage-making? In seventeen years of marriage, despite oft-repeated hopes, prayers, and pilgrimages, Marguerite did not have any children with Charles

50

Jourda, Marguerite 1, 285. For a brief and by no means exhaustive account of her influence—compared, among others, with Louise of Savoy and Francis I’s mistress, Anne d’Étampes—in the nomination of bishops, see Edelstein, “Church Patronage,” 33–49. 51

60

chapter two

d’Alençon. Their childlessness, in its day, was an important political fact. Henry VIII’s case shows in extreme form how important the failure to produce a male heir could be. Charles d’Alençon’s house died with him and his lands escheated to the crown. Contemporaries must have wondered why they could not have children. Was she barren? Was he infertile? No answers appear in the sources, but their failure to produce an heir certainly troubled Marguerite greatly.52 However, within two years of her second marriage to Henri d’Albret, Marguerite gave birth to a daughter, Jeanne, on 16 November 1528.53 Prior to this, whatever contemporaries may have known or thought they knew about her fertility, calculations based on her childlessness and the possibility of remaining so must have weighed heavily when judging her ‘reproductive’ political worth. For instance, this issue was fundamental for all involved in 1516, when Francis settled the heritable rights of Armagnac on the still childless house of Alençon, and again in 1525, when, as part of the negotiations after his defeat at Pavia and the nearly concurrent death of Charles d’Alençon, Francis I considered offering her hand in marriage to Charles V. It must also have been considered in December 1526, when the young Henri d’Albret agreed to marry Marguerite, who was then thirty-four years old. The history of Marguerite’s pregnancies after the birth of Jeanne is a succession of dashed hopes. Their son Jean was born on 15 July 1530, but he died on Christmas Day 1530 at the age of five months, ten days.54 Two advanced pregnancies miscarried, the second in 1543, when she was fifty-one.55 Several pregnancies spontaneously aborted at very early stages, often, she claimed, due to the physical stress of overland travel by litter.56 With only one female heir Marguerite and Henri d’Albret’s ability

52 Louise of Savoy and Marguerite’s interest in St. Anne, patroness of infertile women, occasioned Lefèvre’s reassessment of the legend of Mary’s mother. See chapter 4. 53 Jourda, Marguerite 1, 153. 54 Raymond Ritter, Les solitudes de Marguerite de Navarre (1527–1549) (Paris: Librairie Ancienne Honoré Champion, 1953), 17. 55 Jourda, Marguerite 2, 1014. 56 Jean Du Bellay wrote to Anne de Montmorency on 12 January [1531] from Alençon that “ladite Dame [Marguerite] soit grosse. Gauchier qui ce jour a esté icy, et Mr. Jehan Grymot sont de ceste advice et elle aussy, si ainsy est, c’est de tres peu de temps qu’il est apparent, veu l’experience qui autresfois s’en est veue en elle mesme, que le travail qu’elle prendra en chemin, mesmement estans les chemyns en ce pay tels qu’il ne se y peult reparer, gastera tout ce qui en elle est commence.” BnF Clairambault 313, fol. 24; Scheurer 1, no. 95, 201–203.

mapping the navarrian network

61

to pursue their dynastic interests through marriage of their offspring was limited, a problem that occasioned fierce struggles with Francis I and Henry II over Jeanne’s two betrothals. As an extension of her matriarchal role, Marguerite had charge over the upbringing of numerous noble offspring. For instance, she cared for Francis I’s children after Queen Claude died in 1524. She also had custody of the orphaned Rohan boys, heirs to a large estate in Brittany. The children of her vassals enjoyed similar patronage. Marguerite championed Georges d’Armagnac, who was “like a son” to her, from the time she sent him as a youngster to Meaux for training until he gained the cardinal’s hat through her efforts. She also supported the Italian prince Antonio Caracciolo, helping him from an early age to rise to high ecclesiastical positions in France. To the list of her domestic roles we should add that of matchmaker. Major courtiers were preoccupied with arranging the marriages of children from the royal family and the chief noble houses. Especially on the international level, this form of ‘war by other means’ entailed calculating the territorial gains or concessions and alliances that were their raison d’être. Marguerite also took responsibility for facilitating and arranging the marriages of her less exalted relatives as well as the demoiselles of her personal court. The importance of her roles as nurturer and matchmaker should not be underestimated. Through them she helped to shape the next generation of the nobility. The results of her efforts have not been fully measured, but some notable examples—including her own daughter, who became a convinced Calvinist and mother of Henry IV—indicate that Marguerite prepared the way for portions of the nobility to become partisans of either the Royalist or Reformed parties during the Wars of Religion, both of which opposed the conservative Catholic coalition led by the Guise family. In an intermediary stage, shortly after conquering the duchy of Luxemburg in 1543, Francis I’s youngest son Charles d’Angoulême wrote to the Protestant princes of the Schmalkaldic League, declaring his desire to have the gospel preached there and to be included in their league. As a gauge of his sincerity he pointed out that he was raised by Marguerite and educated by Lefèvre d’Étaples. Whatever our speculations about the admixture of political motives involved in such cases, a number of Marguerite’s friends and relatives came to support evangelicals and subsequently Calvinists. This influence seems to have been especially marked among women at court including Renée de

62

chapter two

France, the baroness d’Entragues, and even Anne Boleyn, who passed several of her early years there.57 Religion and Books What was Marguerite’s religion? Most scholars have considered answering this question as the key to understanding her character and career.58 To clarify this issue they have inspected her many religious writings and regarded them as a mirror of her soul.59 Scholars agree that she accepted major portions of the reformers’ theology, particularly the central doctrines of justification by faith alone and Scripture as the sole basis for doctrine. In addition, Guillaume Briçonnet’s theology of mystical ascent to God, derived from Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, Nicolas of Cusa, and Hugh of St. Victor, has been seen as an enduring and structuring element in her thought. Her writings are, however, limited platforms for understanding why she supported an extensive evangelical network. Many of her writings, including her first published work, Le Miroir de l’âme pécheresse (1531), outline paths for the Christian to draw (or rather be drawn) into closer relationship with God. They also contain strong criticisms of abuses and

57 This short list is intended only to highlight several important women who were not on Marguerite’s household rolls. Nancy Lyman Roelker has substantiated the connection between Marguerite and a wide circle of Protestant noblewomen of the next generation, many of whom had been members of her household, but has by no means exhausted this line of research. See her “The Appeal of Calvinism to French Noblewomen in the Sixteenth Century,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 2 (1972), 391–418; idem, “The Role of Noblewomen in the French Reformation,” ARG 63 (1972), 168–195. Marguerite’s aunt, Philiberte de Savoie, with whom she shared Briçonnet’s spiritual letters, was among the group of Marguerite’s intimates in the early years, but she died in 1524. No information about her activities is known. Marguerite’s younger “sister,” Renée de France—who was the younger sister of Claude de France, Francis’s first wife—led an embattled existence protecting French and Italian evangelicals in her entourage at the court of her husband, the duke of Ferrara. These included, for a time, Marot and Calvin. Anne Malet de Graville, “madame d’Entragues,” succored Caroli and Pierre Toussain at her castle. For Caroli’s stay, see Veissière, Guillaume Briçonnet, 371; for Toussain’s stay, see Pierre Toussain to Johannes Oecolampadius in Basel, 26 July [1526], Herminjard 1, no. 181, 445. Anne Boleyn spent some time as a young lady at the French court and is likely to have been influenced by the evangelical doctrines preached there at Marguerite’s behest. For the renewing of their contact and collaboration in the early 1530s, see chapter 9. 58 See the introduction to the present work for a discussion of the state of scholarship on Marguerite’s religion. 59 Whence the title of a well-executed contribution to the debate by Gary Ferguson, Mirroring Belief: Marguerite de Navarre’s Devotional Poetry (Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press, 1992).

mapping the navarrian network

63

misleading doctrine, but lack prescriptive advice about how to reshape the cult or cure the ills of the church. Nor does she specify the links between belief and practical reform. Marguerite’s religious works were in this regard very different from those of the major Protestant reformers. Luther and Calvin not only articulated their theologies, but they also showed how true religion had been corrupted and how it should be righted. They not only attacked the traditional church but also interpreted its failings in a religious-historical framework. Luther saw the papacy as the Antichrist and interpreted the corruption of the doctrine and morals of the traditional church as signs that the End Times were near. Calvin assimilated the struggle of the true church of the elect against the papacy trans-historically with the flight of the Jews from the idolatry of Egypt. Although Marguerite is reported to have expressed similar views about the church and papacy in private conversations with English ambassadors, her literary works lack these religious-historical frameworks. They do not set up clear lines of opposition, provide explanatory frameworks, or furnish imperatives for rejecting the old church. Given the religious repression of the time, Marguerite may well have articulated in print much less than she wished, but she certainly was bold in the views that she did express. The traditional prohibitions against women discussing or writing about theological topics still restricted her, despite her rank.60 Moreover, the ideas to which she inclined were subject to censure by the Faculty of Theology. Indeed, several hardy doctors attempted to have her Miroir condemned in 1533, but backed down in the face of the king’s wrath. The potentially detrimental effects of further controversy may have dissuaded her from publishing most of her religious writings until after the death of Francis I. When Henry II, who despised her, came to power and she had no influence left to lose, Marguerite’s secretaries saw through the press her Marguerites de la Marguerite des Princesses, an extensive collection of poems, song, and plays no less religiously engaged than her previous works.61

60 Because of this, Charles de Sainte-Marthe, her secretary, was at some pains in his funeral oration to justify Marguerite’s persistent and active interest in religious issues. See “Oraison funèbre de la mort de l’incomparable Marguerite, Royne de Navarre,” reprinted in Marguerite de Navarre, Heptaméron des nouvelles, ed. A. Le Roux de Lincy and Anatole de Montaiglon, vol. 1, 23–130. 61 Higman, Piety, lists two editions of the Marguerites from 1547 and 1549, M 32–33.

64

chapter two

Most important for discerning her platform are the four works that she published in the early 1530s. Three of these, Le Miroir de l’âme pécheresse, Le Discord étant en l’homme par la contrariété de l’esprit et de la chair, and L’Oraison a Nostre Seigneur Jésus Christ, were published together under the title of Le Miroir (1531) and reprinted nine more times during her life.62 A fourth work, the Dialogue en forme de vision nocturne (1533), appeared once.63 These texts show that she held evangelical beliefs and could articulate them subtly. Yet, however much the content of these works may reflect her soul, in publishing them she was not hanging autobiographical mirrors up for public display. Rather, she was presenting a carefully dressed display window in which she exhibited for her readers what she considered to be essential truths of the faith. Her attempt to instruct via print complemented the efforts of preachers and authors whom she sponsored, and formed part of their proselytizing efforts. The Network Despite Marguerite’s status and efforts, the Navarrian Network never grew into a broad or enduring organization. Its members never wrote or subscribed to a statement of faith. However, network members were active in promoting, as they called it, the “cause of the gospel,” and they did articulate, publish, preach, teach, and attempt to transform the church according to a recognizable and commensurate set of doctrines. The Navarrian Network, moreover, was not the sum total of the evangelical movement in France, which was much broader still, but a vector between it and the political powers who would decide the religious question. Not all the influential people with whom Marguerite cooperated were evangelical, yet her closest collaborators were committed to the evangelical cause and constituted the backbone of the network. They sought to promote the gospel within the framework of a strong royal regime. We need first to outline the platform they shared and the principal activities by which they implemented it. Second, we will inventory the members of the network and the places where they operated.

62 These texts were published in eight editions of Le Miroir and included in the two editions of her Marguerites, Higman, Piety, M 32–41. 63 Higman, Piety, M 31.

mapping the navarrian network

65

Evangelical Enlightenment Nous prions donc le Roi du ciel We pray the king of heaven Par sa bonté That in his goodness Qu’il nous envoie sa lumière He would send to us his light. Et qu’il nous écrive au cœur And that he would write on our heart Par sa douceur In his sweet kindness Le contenu en l’Evangile. The Gospel message. —Anonymous popular song at Meaux (1525)

French evangelicals were hoping for the light to dawn, to break through the darkness of human reason, to shine through the shades of superstition. They were hoping for an ‘evangelical enlightenment.’64 Their letters and books are suffused with “gospel light” as a metaphor for true doctrine.65 The verses quoted above, sung by commoners at Meaux in 1525, faithfully capture that programmatic image.66 Their teachers, Lefèvre d’Étaples, Gérard Roussel, and the rest of the Meaux circle, as well as later evangelical writers, articulated a coherent

64

Note that the title of this section is not seeking to claim evangelicals in the Navarrian Network were forerunners of the Enlightenment, nor is it a terminological backborrowing like applications of “Renaissance” to the renewals of the Carolingian Age and the twelfth century. Rather, it calls attention to the fact that French evangelicals saw themselves as promoting religious ‘enlightenment,’ an illumination of souls and minds to be brought about by proclaiming the gospel. See chapter 4 for their understanding that the “illustratio evangelii” had begun. 65 Philip Edgcumbe Hughes correctly relates that as early as 1512 in his commentary on Paul’s Epistles Lefèvre “insists on the futility of human reason apart from the illumination of divine grace. ‘If human minds which do not experience divine enlightenment produce anything,’ he writes, ‘it usually does more harm than good and provides no vital nourishment for our minds,’ ” Lefèvre: Pioneer of Ecclesiastical Renewal in France (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1984), 70. This lexicon of light and darkness, of God’s illuminating grace and the darkness of human reason, is ubiquitous in evangelical writings. Baduel’s letter to Melanchthon mentioned above is structured around this biblical metaphor. Further examples taken at hazard: illuminatores, divine lucis radium, veritas evangelicae, in Nicolas Le Sueur’s letter to Farel, Herminjard 1, no. 102, 217; tenebras and lux, in Lefèvre’s letter to Farel, Herminjard 1, no. 103; “Il fault que la lumière luyse et que les ténèbres aient fin,” in Farel’s letter to Étienne de La Forge, Herminjard 3, no. 462, 168. Catholic polemicists specifically assaulted evangelical pretensions to having a true bead on divine light. For example, Jérôme de Hangest titled his response to the 1534 placard against the Mass: Contre les tenebrions, lumiere evangelicque (Paris: Guillaume de Bossozel and Jean Petit, 15 January 1535). See Jean Babelon, La bibliothèque de Fernand Colomb, Revue des bibliothèques, supl.10 (Paris: Champion, 1913), no. 86; Higman, Piety, H 1. 66 “Chanson nouvelle” (1525), last strophes, Henri-Léonard Bordier, Le chansonnier huguenot du XVIe siècle, 2 vols., (Paris: Tross, 1870; repr. Geneva: Slatkine, 1969), vol. 1, xviii.

66

chapter two

vision of true doctrine.67 Its grounding point was the belief that salvation comes through faith in Christ’s solely meritorious sacrifice for human sin.68 They shared with the Protestant reformers, whose works they read avidly,69 the same thoroughgoing emphasis on justification by faith alone and formulated similar criticisms of traditional church doctrine and practice. Yet, they did not draw the same conclusions as the reformers about how to end these abuses. In their approach to renewing church practice, the evangelicals supported by Marguerite sought to transform the sacraments in form and content so as to rid them of abuses while recovering their essential cores. When Roussel outlined a new liturgy for the celebration of the Eucharist, he tried to conform closely to the rite as described in the New Testament, reinstating communion in both kinds.70 Evangelicals tried to retain as much of the liturgy and as many practices as were scriptural—or at least innocuous to Scripture. Thus, while Roussel still maintained a form of auricular confession of sins to a minister and a place for the saints in religious devotion, he stripped them of their instrumental roles in the Catholic economy of grace. Roussel and other evangelicals wanted believers to participate in the Eucharist by faith, not merely to watch the sacrifice of the Mass; to confess their sins freely and honestly to God and one another, not to inventory them in a priestly inquest of their misdeeds; and to hear the promise of forgiveness, not to calculate a balance sheet of debts owed for the amendment of their sins. He further wanted them to emulate the saints’ exemplary lives, not to venerate their remains or to solicit favors through their presumed intercessory powers. Ultimately, he thought believers should approach God directly and accept his grace, not curry his favor through intermediaries or works.

67

The following is intended as an orienting summary of the findings in chapters 5–11 about evangelicals’ doctrines and approaches to renewing faith, based on the works of Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples, Gérard Roussel, and other evangelical texts emanating from the Navarrian Network. 68 For Lefèvre’s soteriology which influenced many evangelicals, see Hughes, Lefèvre, 74–92. 69 It should be remembered that the exchange was, if not equal, still bidirectional: Luther, Bucer, and Calvin had read Lefèvre’s biblical commentaries. 70 Roussel’s presentation of the Eucharist in his Familiar exposition closely follows Calvin’s presentation in the Institution de la religion chrétienne. There is a striking parallel between their two presentations of how the Eucharist should be celebrated in simple conformity to the rite outlined in 1 Corinthians 11. See chapter 11.

mapping the navarrian network

67

For these French evangelicals, the link between faith and concrete action was charity ( foi ouvrante par charité).71 Faith was belief in the gospel promise of forgiveness; preaching and print the means to teach it. The sacraments, suitably rehabilitated, were occasions for the administration of God’s grace through which faith was given and strengthened. Charitable deeds were the lived expression of that faith. For Marguerite and her collaborators actively loving one’s neighbor meant publishing books of instruction, preaching true doctrine, financing schools, founding orphanages, reforming monastic houses, devising better systems for poor relief, inspecting prisons to ensure humane treatment, succoring exiles, redacting legal codes, ensuring just trials, directing royal troops to combat brigand bands, forgiving enemies, and succoring the innocent. In short, they saw just rule as an expression of true belief. Finally, it must be noted that Marguerite and her network were engaged not simply in drawing up a collection of first principles about religion and social order, but in an overt power struggle to determine which doctrine and whose judgment would set the standard for France. Their religious views were contested vigorously by conservatives. Moreover, when their followers committed acts of religious sacrilege in over-enthusiastic response to their evangelical preaching, the criticisms of traditionalists became difficult to parry. Against this threat, the Navarrians, in their deeds and writings, stressed political and social stability as a rule of faith. This conservative emphasis was not just the logical outcome of their belief that God, not revolutionaries acting in his name, would effect renewal, but also a necessary condition for their continued survival and ability to preach that message. To be sure, the specific measures they took to put their doctrines into practice were hardly distinctive. They are congruent with the most advanced efforts, by early modern standards, to foster godliness, law, order, and prosperity. Alençon, Berry, and the Béarn all underwent significant administrative renewal during Marguerite and Henry d’Albret’s reigns. Members of her network with political authority conducted similar efforts in the regions they governed. Roussel granted his town

71 Roussel uses this expression throughout the Familiere exposition to designate active faith. The roots of this concept go back at least to his experience at Meaux. For a brief exposition of the Meaux group’s understanding of faith, works, and charity, see Guy Bedouelle et Franco Giacone’s introduction to their edition of Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples, Epistres et Evangiles pour les cinquante et deux dimenches de l’an: Texte de l’édition Pierre de Vingle (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976), xlvii–xlviii.

68

chapter two

of Clairac a liberal constitution of self-rule. In Turin, Guillaume Du Bellay administered the king’s newly conquered lands of Savoy and Piedmont with greater dexterity and popularity than French governors had ruled Milan in the past. The Navarrian Program Network members tried to disseminate their evangelical views and reform church and society according to them in six principal ways. Indeed, most members are known to us because they participated in these projects, which affected the most important areas of French public life. 1. In international diplomacy, they sought to establish a military alliance and confessional concord between France and the Protestant powers of Germany, Henry VIII of England, and the pope against the Hapsburg emperor, Charles V. By answering Francis I’s dynastic ambitions and the aspirations of his would-be allies, this effort sought to create political conditions favorable to the ordered spread of evangelicalism in France and abroad. 2. In government, they maneuvered to advance their members to important royal and ecclesiastical offices in order to secure power that would help them to implement their program. 3. In the churches and schools of towns throughout France, members preached and taught their evangelical doctrines to parishioners and students in order to begin the ‘evangelical’ renewal of doctrine and practice. Their efforts centered on giving their charges access to and instruction in the basic texts of the faith in the vernacular, including catechetical instruction in the three basic symbols of the faith—the Ten Commandments, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Credo—and clear exposition of the Scriptures, concentrating on the Psalms, Gospels, and Paul’s Epistles. Such teaching took place from public pulpits and lecterns but also in private settings, leading to the formation of local evangelical cells. Ultimately, they expected that their teaching would convince the laity and the political and ecclesiastical powers to purify customary practices, the liturgy, and the sacraments, returning them to their primitive apostolic forms. 4. In the public forum, they published a wide variety of books to broadcast their views about true doctrine, the church, and society and to aid their evangelizing efforts. These publications including vernacular Bibles, catechetical and devotional literature, polemical tracts, religiously

mapping the navarrian network

69

charged poems, songs, plays, and works of prose, as well as treatises on history, political theory, and ecclesiology. 5. In the law courts, they used their political clout to preserve their brethren from attacks by conservatives whose adherents had preponderant control of the judiciary. 6. In their jurisdictions within the “most Christian realm,” they helped to increase royal control over justice, taxation, poor relief, and schools, thereby contributing to the state-building policies of the monarchy. They justified and sought to temper these activities with their doctrine’s basic principle of civic activity: charity. Brotherly love should be, they argued, the lived expression of faith, the core principle of Christian belief. These activities distinguished network members as a recognized religio-political coalition in France distinct from their conservative adversaries as well as from the nascent Reformed Protestant movement emanating from the Swiss cantons. The Members in situ The Navarrian Network took shape during the early 1520s around the Meaux group before Francis’s capture at Pavia. In these years, Marguerite tried to disseminate their model of evangelical preaching first to the court, then throughout France. While her mother and brother protected this experiment—as they had protected certain traditional monastic reforms—they did not actively sponsor it. From their beginnings at Meaux to their demise during the early years of Henry II’s reign, Marguerite and the evangelical reformers fought an uphill battle against the growing perception that they were heretics. The first setback in their Sisyphean ascent came in 1523, when conservatives identified the Meaux group’s teaching as “Lutheran.” Next, during Francis’s captivity (1525–1526), the Parlement of Paris demanded that heretics be pursued as the price for cooperating with Louise of Savoy’s regency government. Since conservatives soon convinced French people that the “Lutheran” Peasants’ War (1525) and the rise of the “Lutheran” states in Germany and Switzerland threatened the kingdom, promoting church reform and evangelical preaching at home became increasingly politicized and difficult. Every reform effort registered as an act in the larger struggles over both domestic policy and international relations. Ever menaced with persecution, evangelical writers and ministers depended on political figures in the network to secure them protection and opportunities to articulate their message. The rise of Protestant

70

chapter two

powers abroad in the early 1530s presented opportunities for French evangelicals. In response, the Navarrian Network developed international contacts and a diplomatic wing based at court, whose efforts complemented domestic efforts. Marguerite and her allies thus faced the prospect, over time, of engaging on several fronts where they had differing levels of power and faced greater or lesser obstacles in their effort to promote evangelical renewal: 1) at the royal court; 2) in Marguerite’s personal court and domain territories; 3) in French territories where Marguerite did not have formal powers; and 4) with Protestant states outside France. The Royal Court. Among Francis’s top advisors and ambassadors, Marguerite’s consistent allies were Guillaume Du Bellay (1491–1543), seigneur de Langey, and his brother the bishop of Paris, Cardinal Jean Du Bellay (1492–1560). They started working together in 1525, when the brothers helped to negotiate Francis’s ransom after the defeat at Pavia. Their letters indicate that they were collaborating at court by the late 1520s. For the rest of Francis’s reign, the Du Bellay brothers—along with Anne de Montmorency and François de Tournon (1489–1562)—were the most important architects of French foreign policy, both as active ambassadors in the field and as councillors at court. Guillaume and Jean virtually monopolized French missions to the Empire and undertook many embassies to Switzerland, England, and Rome. They also held important military posts. Jean served as governor of l’Île de France during crucial war years. From 1538 to 1543 Guillaume was given charge of administering the newly conquered territories in Savoy and Piedmont. In the latter half of Francis’s reign, from 1530 to 1547, Marguerite, Anne d’Étampes, Admiral Philippe Chabot de Brion, the Du Bellay brothers, as well as two of the king’s sons, Francis (1518–1536) and Charles (1522–1545) formed the core of a political faction at court with pro-evangelical, pro-English, and anti-Hapsburg tendencies. Opposed to them and dominant at court was a rival party including Anne de Montmorency, Cardinal Duprat, who was chancellor until 1536, the cardinal of Lorraine (1498–1550), Queen Eleanor (1498–1558, r. 1530–1547), Chancellor Guillaume Poyet (1473–1548), and Francis’s middle son, the future Henry II (1519–1559).72

72 R. J. Knecht dates the rise of factional strife at court to 1536 when the dauphin Francis died, leaving Henri and Charles as focal points for the two factions. See Renaissance Warrior, 484. This date should be pushed back to around 1530, from which time

mapping the navarrian network

71

Serving Marguerite’s faction were a number of royal officials, many of whom she had promoted from her personal court into the king’s service. Jacques Colin (d. 1547), abbot of Saint-Ambroise at Bourges and a noted humanist, was Marguerite’s vice chancellor in Armagnac and a royal councillor. Her chancellor of Alençon and president of the assize court (grands jours) in Berry, Jean Brinon (d. 1537) was also first president of the Parlement of Rouen as well as president of Louise of Savoy’s personal council. François Olivier (1497–1560), Jean Brinon’s successor as chancellor of Alençon, rose through various royal posts to become chancellor of France (1545–1550). Guillaume Feau, seigneur d’Izernay, in Marguerite’s service from 1530 onwards, accumulated the offices of royal notary, secretary, and valet. He served as Marguerite’s factor at court during the last years of Francis’s reign, when she was frequently absent. Nicolas de Bossut, seigneur de Longueval, a protégé of madame d’Étampes, and the seigneur La Planche served as unofficial envoys from Marguerite and madame d’Étampes to Henry VIII in the 1540s. Marguerite vouched for La Planche to the English, saying that he was “of her upbringing” (nourriture).73 All of these men served on important diplomatic missions during Francis’s reign.74 Some nobles at the royal court who did not owe their positions to Marguerite also participated in the network. Madame d’Entragues, as mentioned above, protected two evangelicals, Pierre Caroli and Pierre Toussain, from pursuit as heretics in 1525–1526. In 1526, Robert II de La Marck, an ally of Francis I on the border of the kingdom, offered to hire Farel as his court preacher at the request of Gérard Roussel, Marguerite’s almoner.75 More famously, Louis de Berquin (d. 1529), who translated the works of Erasmus and Luther, enjoyed the support of Marguerite and the king in 1523, 1526, and for a final moment in 1529, though it did not save him from the stake.

there is ample evidence of infighting over the religious issue and over foreign policy with regard to the growing Protestant presence in Europe. 73 Letters and Papers 20, pt. 2, no. 942, 470. Notably, these discussions centered on building French-English relations upon the premise that Marguerite and Anne could get Francis to break with Rome if Henry would lend his support. See chapters 9 and 11. 74 All these figures served several times either as resident ambassadors or special envoys. Other important figures from Marguerite’s household also doubled in the service of the king including two of her chief financial secretaries, Victor Brodeau (d. 1540), a noted humanist, and his successor, Jean Frotté. See the lists of all the known diplomatic missions for Francis’s reign in CAF 9, 1 ff. 75 See Gérard Roussel at Saint-Germain-en-Laye to Farel at Strasbourg, 7 December 1526, Herminjard 1, no. 184, 459–460.

72

chapter two

On the other hand, although she expressed hatred for them behind closed doors, Marguerite often worked at court with those of the proImperial faction in order to maintain a hand in royal affairs.76 Other courtiers slipped in and out of working relations with her as the constellations of power at court shifted. Guillaume Petit (c. 1470–1536), a Dominican doctor of theology and the king’s confessor, protected Lefèvre in 1521 and published Marguerite’s book of hours.77 Yet in 1522, he also denounced Marguerite’s almoner, a member of the Meaux circle, Michel d’Arande, before the Faculty of Theology for the sermons he preached at court. Cardinal Francis de Tournon was another sometime ally, for whom Marguerite helped to secure the archbishopric of Bourges (1526). In the 1540s, he helped to lead the anti-evangelical faction at court. The Du Bellay Entourage. The Du Bellay brothers’ diplomatic corps deserves special mention for its place in the wider Navarrian Network.78 Beyond the brothers’ formal duties as ambassadors, they managed a team of minor nobles and humanists who played an important role in maintaining informal communications between French evangelicals and their allies in the Empire and Switzerland. The Du Bellays recruited a team of able German scholars and students studying in Paris to serve as diplomatic agents: Dr. Gervais Wain, Johann Sturm, Dr. Ulrich Geiger (Chelius), and Johannes Sleidan. In turn, they drew on the services of French students in the Empire, such as Claude Baduel, Guillaume Bigot, and their kinsman, Barnabé de Voré, seigneur de La Fosse. These humanists served as effective operatives with the Protestant princes and 76 For reports of Marguerite privately expressing her bitter dislike of her brother’s top advisor, Anne de Montmorency, see Norfolk to Henry VIII, 23 June 1533, Letters and Papers 6, no. 692, 308–310; and Norfolk to Cromwell, 21 February 1540, Letters and Papers 15, no. 240, 85. The sentiment was mutual. For a report from the French court on the pro-Imperial faction’s abhorrence of Henry VIII (and by extension the Navarrian faction at court who favored him), see Paget to Henry VIII, 13 June 1542, Letters and Papers 17, no. 400, 233. 77 Charles Schmidt mentions the Heures de la royne Marguerite (1533) in Gérard Roussel: Prédicateur de la reine Marguerite de Navarre. Mémoire servant à l’histoire des premières tentatives faites pour introduire la Réforme en France (Strasbourg: Schmidt and Grukner, 1845; repr. Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1970), 96. This is probably the same as Guillaume Petit, Tres devotes oraisons a l’honneur de la tressacree et glorieuse Vierge Marie mere de dieu, avec plusieurs aultres devotes chansons (Paris, Simon de Colines, 1534?); see Higman, Piety, p. 12. 78 Jean Du Bellay has yet to receive a book length study. V.-L. Bourrilly wrote several learned articles on the Du Bellays’ activities (see bibliography) as well as the standard monograph on Guillaume, from which the following information is drawn. See his Guillaume Du Bellay, seigneur de Langey, 1491–1543 (Paris: Société Nouvelle de Librairie et d’Édition, 1905).

mapping the navarrian network

73

reformers. In addition, at home and on mission in England, Rome, Switzerland, and the Empire, they had a corps of loyal relatives and close friends who seconded their efforts, including Martin Du Bellay, René Du Bellay, Jean Morelet Du Museau, Étienne de Laigues, seigneur de Beauvais, and Nicolas Raince. The Du Bellay brothers were not only diplomats but also humanists in their own right, and they patronized many others in their courts, including Jean Salmon “Macrin,” Étienne Dolet, Jean de Boyssoné, and François Rabelais. The Meaux Circle. The members of the Meaux circle first linked Marguerite to the nascent world of evangelicalism.79 Marguerite was in close contact with them during their experiment in reform and she protected its leading figures: Bishop Guillaume Briçonnet, Lefèvre d’Étaples, Michel d’Arande, and Gérard Roussel.80 In turn, this group corresponded with a number of other evangelical individuals and local circles. In Paris, Pierre Caroli, a doctor of theology, preached to an evangelical cell and taught at the university in much the same vein as his fellows at Meaux. One of the era’s great poets, Clément Marot, served in Marguerite’s court from 1518 onwards, and was there exposed to the evangelical ideas that would become increasingly prevalent in his verse.81 All of these figures were pursued for heresy during Francis I’s captivity (1525–1526). The leaders of the Meaux group, Briçonnet aside, fled to Strasbourg, where they were joined by Guillaume Farel, a layman-scholar who had left his colleagues in 1523 and embarked on a preaching tour in southern France and the French-speaking regions across the western border. In the meantime, he had become the most important link between the Meaux group and the international evangelical movement.

79 For the beginnings of Marguerite’s relationship with the Fabrists before Meaux, see chapter 4, and for at Meaux, chapter 6. 80 Veissière lists the key figures at Meaux in its two phases, naming François Vatable, Martial Mazurier, Guillaume Farel, Jean Le Comte de la Croix, Jean Lange (Angelus), Jean Canaye, Jacques Pauvan, Matthieu Saunier, Jean Gadon, Nicolas Mangin, Nicolas de Neufchâteau, Jean du Mesnil, Michel Bentin, Nicolas Le Sueur, Jean Le Clerc, Pierre Le Clerc, and, associated with them, Jean Guibert, “l’Hermite de Livry.” See Veissière, Guillaume Briçonnet, 201 ff. and 223 ff. 81 V.-L. Saulnier 1977, 17, discussing letter 27.2, a poem from Marot to Marguerite (October 1521), argues for the early influence of the Meaux circle on Marot’s poetry. In Marot’s description of the burning after the battle of Valenciennes, he uses a ‘Briçonnian’ lexicon, speaking of “fumée causée de boys mortel ardant en feu (sans eau de grâce) inextinguible,” and “l’eau de grâce (salvatrice).” Saulnier sees evidence in these passages that Marguerite had been spreading Briçonnian ideas to her friends at court. For Marot’s evangelicalism and its development into a more thoroughgoing Lutheranism, see Screech, Clément Marot, esp. 9–39.

74

chapter two

His detailed correspondence with several members of the Meaux group reveals that an extensive evangelical network had been established in France by the mid-1520s. After the return of Francis I, Marguerite was able to repatriate and find safe havens for the former members of the Meaux group. Lefèvre was put in charge of the king’s library at Blois and became tutor to his children. Roussel became Marguerite’s personal almoner. He accompanied her with the royal court in its travels and continued to preach, albeit in guarded fashion. Marguerite secured for d’Arande the bishopric of Saint-Paul-Trois-Châteaux in the Dauphiné (1526).82 Pierre Caroli received a pastorate in Marguerite’s Alençon. Farel refused the post offered to him.83 With regard to the diocese of Meaux itself, there is an impressive silence after its reformers returned from Strasbourg. Neither Marguerite nor the former members of the Meaux group seem to have maintained relations with Briçonnet or the underground evangelical cell there. However, they did fight a number of battles, such as making public in 1527 the acquittal of Jean Guibert—one of their associates—of heresy charges, in order to rehabilitate the image of the Meaux group. Marguerite’s Domains and Personal Court. Marguerite gathered, protected, and found employment for an extensive number of evangelical ministers, teachers, humanists, and notables in places where she could shield them with her authority. From north to south the territories in which Marguerite had power and implanted her network have the following profile. Alençon. Pierre Caroli probably arrived there before November 1525, at which time he was investigated for his preaching.84 In 1529, the printer Simon Du Bois moved from Paris to Alençon after the execution of Louis de Berquin. He had printed at least three of Berquin’s translations of Erasmus as well as other suspect books composed by members of the Meaux circle. At Alençon he continued to publish

82 Thereafter, we know very little about d’Arande’s activities. Capito describes him as being scrupulous in performing his duties as bishop the dedication to Marguerite of his In Hoseam prophetam, dated 22 March 1528, Herminjard 2, no. 227, 120. See d’Arande’s diffident response to Farel, who had chastised by him for Lefèvre-like timidity in promoting the gospel, Herminjard 3, no. 544, 399–401. 83 See note 75 and chapter 8, pp. 353–354. 84 Jacques de Silly, bishop of Sées, complained to the Faculty of Theology about the preaching of a certain curé in his diocese at this time. Farge believes that Caroli was the likely culprit; see Orthodoxy, 185, and further the article in Farge, Biographical Register, 65–71.

mapping the navarrian network

75

clandestinely a catalogue of even more ‘heretical’ works until 1534.85 He evidently acted with Marguerite’s knowledge and assent, since many of these works were composed by veterans of the Meaux reform including Caroli, Lefèvre, and Roussel. Marguerite herself would publish her first religious poetry with Du Bois, Le Miroir in 1531 and Le Dialogue en forme de vision nocturne in 1533. Du Bois returned to Paris in 1534, when a heresy investigation in Alençon seems to have made life impossible for him there. He disappeared without leaving any clear trace at about the time the Placards were posted. His name appeared along with Caroli’s, who had fled to Switzerland, on the January 1535 list of those sought on charges of heresy.86 His catalogue included some of the same titles and authors as the most important printer of French evangelical books outside France, Martin Lempereur of Antwerp (d. 1536). Books first published by these two printers were subsequently republished by a second generation of evangelical printers after 1535. Berry and Bourges. In these territories Marguerite promoted a succession of influential evangelical-minded preachers, educators, and officials.87 She initially had Michel d’Arande preach in Bourges (1523–1524). From 1529 onwards, Marguerite secured a succession of humanist jurists at the University of Bourges. All had evangelical leanings, and some taught their beliefs to their students and the general public. These scholars included Andrea Alciato, Melchior Wolmar, Jacques Amyot, and Pierre de Rébuffe. After the Affair of the Placards, several students fleeing persecution in Paris were given refuge at the University of Bourges. Important evangelical connections were evidently maintained between the university community and the religious houses at Bourges. Jacques Colin’s abbey of Saint-Ambroise became a center of evangelicalism in the region by 1539. Pierre Bouquin, prior of the Carmelites of Bourges,

85

For lists of Simon Du Bois’ publications in Paris and Alençon, see Higman, Piety, pp. 457 and 490. 86 See Robert Hari, “Les placards de 1534,” in Aspects de la propagande religieuse, THR 28 (Geneva: Droz, 1957), 104–105. 87 For the following information, see Le Vicomte de Brimont, Le XVIe siècle et les guerres de la Réforme en Berry, 2 vols. (Paris: Alphonse Picard et fils, 1905), 113–182; Françoise Michaud-Fréjaville, “Marguerite d’Angoulême, reine de Navarre, duchesse de Berry, ‘laquelle a fort humainement traité ses sujets de Berry” in Marguerite de Navarre, 1492–1992: Actes du colloque international de Pau (1992), ed. Nicole Cazauran and James Dauphiné (Mont-de-Marsan: Editions InterUniversitaires, 1995), 45–57; Louis-Hector Chandru de Raynal, Histoire de Berry depuis les temps les plus anciens jusqu’en 1789, 3 vols. [numbered 2–4] (Bourges: Vermeil, 1844–1847), vol. 3, 282–347, 366–380.

76

chapter two

took his doctorate in theology at the university before matriculating at the University of Basel in May 1541.88 Later that year, after a trip to Wittenberg, Bouquin replaced Calvin as pastor of the French church at Strasbourg. Eventually, he returned to Bourges to take the chair of Hebrew. He was protected by Marguerite, who gave him a pension and chose him to preach in the cathedral of Saint-Étienne. Pursued for his religious beliefs, he sought exile in 1555. Calvin is reported, though the evidence is slight, to have preached at the Augustinian convent in Bourges in the early 1530s while he was studying law at the university. Whether or not Calvin influenced his friends in Bourges, several Augustinians from that convent later broke with Rome. Augustin Marlorat, the prior, later served as a Protestant pastor in Rouen.89 Jean de L’Espine, an Augustinian of the same convent, joined Marlorat as one of the Protestant deputies to the Colloquy of Poissy (1561). Two other Augustinians, Richard Vauville and Jean Loquet, also gave up their vows. The former lived in England for an extended period, serving as one of the first pastors of the London French Church, and died as minister of the French Reformed church at Frankfurt.90 Marguerite’s household and court in Aquitaine and beyond. In her household and itinerant court, whose home base in later years was Nérac, Marguerite employed poets and humanists who rank among the leaders of the French Renaissance, including Clément Marot, Nicolas Bourbon, Victor Brodeau, Bonaventure Des Périers, and Charles de Sainte-Marthe. They were closely connected with the world of humanist scholars, as can be seen in the dedications and collected poetic epigrams published from 1532 onwards. Their poems frequently contained programmatic

88

Eugénie Droz, “Les étudiants français de Bâle,” BHR 20 (1958), 117. Eugénie Droz notes that François Landry (d. 1559), an evangelical curate in Paris, who was protected by Jean Du Bellay, later ended up as secretary to Martin Du Bellay, governor of Normandy, where he was involved with a Norman circle of evangelicals including, “Jean Le Blond, curé et seigneur de Branville, de François Le Breton, magister de Coutances, et plus tard d’Augustin Marlorat, ministre des fidèles de Rouen.” See Droz, Chemins 1, 390–391. 90 For information on Vauville’s subsequent career, see Andrew Pettegree, Foreign Protestant Communities in Sixteenth-Century London (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), 49, 52–53. Richard Vauville and François Perussel were appointed as the first ministers of the French church in London. Perussel was from Orléans, and had been converted to Protestantism at Paris in 1542. In 1545 he was accused of preaching heretical sermons at Paris. In 1546 he took refuge in Geneva. 89

mapping the navarrian network

77

statements about the nature of their literary movement, including their pro-evangelical engagement with religious questions.91 A key figure in the history of the Navarrian Network is Gérard Roussel, who was habitually at Marguerite’s side during her travels from 1526. He not only played an important role in directing the spiritual life of her court at Nérac but also ruled over the town of Clairac as the commendatory abbot of the Benedictine monastery. In addition, after he took possession of the diocese of Oloron in the Béarn in 1539, he came to have significant political powers and religious responsibilities in Henry and Marguerite’s largest sovereign territory, the Béarn.92 During this late phase of the Navarrian Network, he produced a catechism and diocesan reform manual that reflected his practice at Oloron. In these works he clearly states his understanding of the essential doctrinal issues that evangelicals in France and the Empire, their Reformed counterparts in Switzerland, and Catholic traditionalists had been debating for thirty years: baptism, the Eucharist, confession, and the cult of the saints. These texts and the scattered evidence about his pastorate indicate that until his death in 1555 he sought to implement a reform program that was essentially consistent with the one that he and his colleagues had outlined at Meaux. Less substantial evidence from other evangelical bishops, such as Jean de Monluc at Valence, and other evangelical cells, notably the one gathered around Baduel at Nîmes, suggest the broad coherence of their reform aspirations. Despite the ever changing but never nurturing political climate, evangelicals in the network acted as best they could to effect their vision. Moreover, these efforts, Roussel’s in particular, help us understand the differences between the Navarrian Network’s reforming agenda and the later Calvinist, magisterial Reformation that Marguerite’s daughter Jeanne d’Albret would begin in 1560. Bordeaux. Marguerite and her network exerted their influence on several occasions in this provincial capital of Aquitaine. Her court was evidently connected with the evangelical-leaning teachers in the University and the Bordeaux region such as Marthurin Cordier and Julius Caesar Scaliger. Illustrating their collaboration, one cause célèbre had an international profile. André Melanchthon, a schoolmaster in nearby Tonneins, had been imprisoned for heretical teaching at Bordeaux. He claimed to be the nephew of Philipp Melanchthon. Indeed, Philipp

91 92

See chapter 10. Roussel’s story will be examined extensively in chapter 11.

78

chapter two

Melanchthon and the elector of Saxony wrote to Marguerite on his behalf. Marguerite, along with Julius Caesar Scaliger, strove for two years to have him freed.93 Of broader significance, Marguerite interceded with this parlement repeatedly to mitigate the pursuit and punishment of heretics and attempted to install sympathetic jurists who would leniently interpret royal instructions for dealing with heresy. Marguerite also played a significant role in the early 1540s, when the people of La Rochelle revolted against increases in the salt tax ( gabelle). Officials believed that their uprising was linked to the rising tide of heresy in the region. Though this revolt enraged Francis, which in a similar case would prove fatal in 1545 for the Vaudois (Waldensians) of Mérindol, Marguerite successfully persuaded her brother to be clement. Toulouse. In this important city Marguerite had limited contacts and less extensive administrative power. Nevertheless, in the 1530s she was instrumental in the battle over the selection of two Dominican inquisitors, Arnaud de Badet and Louis de Rochette, who successively occupied this important post as guardians of orthodoxy. They were so lax in their pursuit of heretics and so objectionable to Catholic conservatives that the first had to flee and the second was burned for heresy.94 After Badet’s departure, several jurists from the University of Toulouse were pursued in an early round of heresy-hunting, including Pierre Bunel, Matthieu Pac, and Jean de Boyssoné. The latter two would remain major figures among French humanists. Marguerite directly intervened on Boyssoné’s behalf in 1536 and offered him a post at the University of Bourges. Pac was later to find a place of honor in her court. France at Large. In the regions where Marguerite’s executive power did not extend formally, she could only foster evangelical activity indirectly by interceding personally with Francis I or other powerful persons. There were some pockets where other sympathetic nobles and notables held sway, but, in general, members of the evangelical sodality operated at greater risk outside the territories under her sway.

93 See Amada López de Meneses, “André Mélanchthon et le Parlement de Bordeaux,” Revue historique de Bordeaux et du département de la Gironde 33 (1940), 41–51; 34 (1941), 36–42. See also V.-L. Saulnier 1971, no. 955, 1. 94 Raymond A. Mentzer, Jr., Heresy Proceedings in Languedoc, 1500–1560, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, vol. 74, 1984, part 5 (Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society, 1984), 15–34.

mapping the navarrian network

79

Amiens. Louis de Berquin evidently fostered the evangelical movement at an early date in this principal city of Picardy. He was accused of spreading Lutheranism there during his trial of 1526 before the Parlement of Paris.95 Later, in December 1533, Jean Morand, a doctor of theology from Paris, was accused of preaching heresy in his Advent sermons. Equally damning in the eyes of investigators, he was caught with letters that linked him to other heretics and ‘Geraldini,’ followers of Gérard Roussel, whose preaching had caused an uproar in Paris earlier that year.96 Paris. The largest city in the realm and its quasi-official capital was also the site of the most important action in the battle to control the religious orientation of France. The Navarrian Network conducted extensive and repeated efforts to inculcate evangelical doctrine there. Their first efforts date to the earliest days of the Meaux experiment. Lefèvre and his colleagues maintained contact with many people in Paris after they moved to Briçonnet’s diocese. During their time there, Pierre Caroli, Guillaume Farel, and, on occasion, Gerard Roussel exported their experiment in preaching and Bible studies to Paris. Between 1526 and 1530, network members do not seem to have engaged in any public preaching in Paris. However, with the return of Francis’s children from captivity in 1530 and the establishment of an ally, Jean Du Bellay, as bishop of Paris in 1532, Marguerite again promoted evangelical preaching there. Gérard Roussel led this effort. During Lent 1533, he was seconded by two Augustinians, Bertaud and Couraud. The following October, Nicolas Cop championed the evangelical cause in his daring rector’s address to the University of Paris. Their sermons produced a season of religious ferment, which the Placard Affair ended by enraging the magistrates and the king, thus turning the political tide in favor of the traditionalists. Though the Placards dealt the evangelicals a hard blow, the community at Paris managed to survive. Centered on a committed core of laity, this evangelical cell included artisans, merchants, and parlementarians. Étienne de La Forge, a rich merchant, and Christophe Hérault, a goldsmith, were leading members of this group and was in contact with Farel and other confreres in Switzerland and in Antwerp as well as with Marguerite. In the wake of the Placards, La Forge was executed 95

See Parlement of Paris to Francis I, 9 April [1526], BnF Clairambault 324, fols. 254r–255r. 96 Jean Dupèbe, “Un document sur les persécutions de l’hiver 1533–1534 à Paris,” BHR 48 (1986), 405–417.

80

chapter two

and Hérault remained an exile in the Low Countries, where he had fled at about the time of their posting. In the following years, Jean Du Bellay and Marguerite protected and nurtured the remaining group. François Landry (d. 1559), the curate of Sainte-Croix and almoner of the Enfants rouges—an orphanage established by Marguerite—was a principal figure directing the evangelical community in Paris. Largely due to Jean Du Bellay’s intervention, he survived imprisonment for heresy in 1542 by retracting his errors, after which time he regained his parish and remained untouched.97 Throughout Francis I’s reign, there were a series of printers and booksellers in Paris associated with the network. They provided crucial contacts with the larger evangelical world and supplied the written material for disseminating the evangelical message in Paris and the rest of France, but many were silenced after a time. These included, among others, Simon de Colines, who was active from 1523 until 1525, when he grew apprehensive and removed himself; Simon Du Bois from 1525 on until he disappeared after the 1534 Placards; Conrad Resch, from the early 1520s until he decided to avoid investigation by conservatives in Paris and return to Basel in 1526; Antoine Augereau, from 1531 until he was executed in 1534 following the Placards; and Robert Estienne, from as early as 1525 until he finally fled to Geneva in 1550. Lyon. Situated on the Rhone at a key juncture, the city was a clearing-house for goods, money, and ideas. It was also the command center for Francis I’s Italian campaigns. From the early 1520s on, Marguerite promoted preaching in and around Lyon. She sponsored Aimé Meigret’s preaching in 1524 at Lyon and Grenoble.98 Michel d’Arande accompanied her when the court settled in Lyon in the fall of 1524. We know from a letter by a member of the king’s Grand Conseil (royal appeals court), Antoine Papillon, to Zwingli that d’Arande and Marguerite were in contact with a whole circle of humanists from Lyon and Grenoble who were evangelizing in the region and establishing familiar relations

97 See note 89 for reference to his connection with Marlorat at Rouen and evangelical printers in Paris. 98 See the report of Jean Bruno de Niedbruck [Dr. Johann von Niedbruck] in Jean Rott and Olivier Millet, “Miettes historiques strasbourgeoises,” in Pierre Barthel, Rémy Scheurer, and Richard Stauffer, eds., Actes du colloque Guillaume Farel: Neuchâtel, 29 septembre–1er octobre 1980, 2 vols., Cahiers de la Revue de Théologie et de Philosophie 9, 1 and 2 (1983) (Geneva: Revue de la Théologie et de Philosophie, 1983), 253–277, 255–257.

mapping the navarrian network

81

with the German reformers.99 In addition to Meigret and Papillon, this group included Anémond de Coct, François Lambert, Pierre de Sébiville, and Claude de Tauro. Significantly, in parallel with the Meaux group, they attempted to bring German reformers’ works to the French market. Papillon translated Luther’s De votis monasticis for Marguerite. In recompense, she secured him a position in the dauphin’s court.100 Later, among the many humanists and scholars in Lyon, Charles de Sainte-Marthe, Du Vergier, and Claude Bigottier were pursued for teaching evangelical biblical lessons in the collège.101 After the Placards, the center of evangelical publication within France moved from Paris to Lyon. An interconnected circle of printers, anchored by Étienne Dolet, François Juste, and Jean de Tournes, published extensive numbers of works, both reprints and new titles, that issued from the Navarrian Network. Nîmes. Having some ties to the city (she employed the bishop of Nîmes as her chancellor of Armagnac), Marguerite helped to found the University of Nîmes (1539) and she secured rectorship for her protégé and the city’s native son, Claude Baduel (1540).102 Soon thereafter, at her behest, Guillaume Bigot, a client of Guillaume Du Bellay, was hired as professor of philosophy. Remarkably, given their similar background, the two scholars quarreled and exchanged formal accusations of heresy. This key episode reveals the fraying of connections within the network during the 1540s. While Bigot eventually departed, Baduel remained and cultivated relationships with evangelical cells in Montpellier, Toulouse, and other communities in the southern of France, including Marguerite’s court in Nérac. He was also in regular contact during the late 1540s with John Calvin in Geneva, to whom he and other evangelicals in his circle were turning for guidance. Foreign Contacts. Outside France, Marguerite and her agents worked with several groups sympathetic to their agenda. This collaboration with

99 Papillon’s letter to Zwingli, dated 7 October 1524, is in ZW 8, no. 346, 221–225; see also Zwingli to Pierre de Sébiville, 13 December 1523, ibid., no. 325, 142–147. 100 Papillon’s translation is not extant. See Herminjard 1, no. 125, 294–297; no. 132, 312–316; and CAF 7, 418. Papillon and Delonius are mentioned by Erasmus in a letter to Berquin as examples of two evangelicals who had died because they had been too hardy in promoting their views: a warning that Berquin would not heed. See Allen 6, no. 1599, 150–151. 101 Heller, The Conquest of Poverty, 75. 102 See Mattieu-Jules Gaufrès, Claude Baduel et la réforme des études au XVIe siècle (Paris: Hachette, 1880), 22–38.

82

chapter two

other evangelical networks needs to be distinguished from the foreign diplomacy that preoccupied Marguerite, the Du Bellays, and their agents. Common interests led them to collaborate even when they had no specific charge from their sovereign lords. The Swiss cantons. In the upper Rhine region, Marguerite and her group attempted to work with Germanophone reformers and exiled French evangelicals, many of whom had been part of the network in France. They did so for a number of reasons. First, they solicited havens for French evangelicals fleeing persecution in France. Second, the Navarrians read the exiles’ books, which nurtured their own reform efforts. Marguerite and Gérard Roussel studied works by Calvin and other authors published in Geneva well into the late 1540s. Third, Marguerite and the Du Bellays recruited the exiles’ help when Francis I’s foreign political maneuvers required it, just as, in turn, the exiles sought protection for their family and friends in France. These occasional helpmates included Guillaume Farel, John Calvin, Matthieu Malingre, Marthurin Cordier, and Pierre Toussain. Basel. Further afield, this German-speaking city provided significant aid to the evangelical movement in France at an early stage. The theologian Oecolampadius, with whom the Navarrian evangelicals corresponded in the 1520s, influenced the movement through his writings. Some of the earliest evangelical literature in French was printed in Basel. In the 1530s and early 1540s, the Du Bellay brothers based some of their diplomatic operatives in Basel and Strasbourg, using these cities as important listening posts and staging grounds for their negotiations in the empire. Strasbourg. This imperial city provided the first significant place of refuge as well as a training ground for French and Francophone evangelicals, some of whom would go on to reform Geneva and the Pays de Vaud. Farel, the Meaux group, Simon Robert and Marie Dentière from Tournai, and Calvin, among many others, all spent formative periods there. The Navarrian Network also looked to its theologians and activists—Wolfgang Capito, Martin Bucer, and Sigismund von Hohenlohe— for solid doctrine and for support in international affairs. As revealed in Marguerite’s letters to von Hohenlohe from 1525 and 1526 and in Bucer’s letter to Luther at the 1530 Diet of Augsburg, Marguerite was in contact with German Protestants from an early date. In the mid-1530s, in addition to Melanchthon and Caspar Hedio, the Du Bellay brothers looked to Bucer to support their overtures for a religious concord.

mapping the navarrian network

83

In the early 1540s, a member of Marguerite’s court, the “Spiritualist” Pocquet, visited Bucer in Strasbourg and Calvin in Geneva for reasons unknown. Both reformers had previously criticized the “Libertine” sect, and would continue to warn Marguerite about it thereafter.103 England and the Protestant Princes. Marguerite, the Du Bellays, and their agents attempted to steer royal policy towards political and confessional concord with Henry VIII and the Protestant princes in the 1530s and 1540s, which bolstered the cause of evangelical reform in France. Francis I’s support for this scheme waxed and waned as his anger with the emperor mounted or subsided and as he oscillated between his anti- and pro-imperial councillors. Even when the political winds were blowing against them, however, the Navarrians maintained significant unofficial contact with England and the Protestants, which is a mark of their commitment to the international evangelical cause. Though an important figure in diplomacy with England from the start of her brother’s reign, Marguerite only became a pillar of English interests at the French court after Henry married Anne Boleyn and broke with Rome. Presumably, this development had something to do with the mutual regard of Marguerite and Anne, arising from their similar religious leanings and early contact in France. Notably, during this same period England was becoming a haven for French evangelicals. Within days of the Placard affair of October 1534, a printer fled to London as did one of the king’s musicians, Petit Robert. That same year, Nicolas Bourbon and his secretary were freed from a French prison at the request of Anne Boleyn, and by May 1535 they had found refuge with her. In late 1535, a mysterious figure titling himself the “bailli d’Amboise” came to England on a mission from Marguerite outside of the normal diplomatic channels.104 Even after Anne’s execution in 1536, Marguerite was, at times, heavily preoccupied with English affairs. This was particularly true when marriage was proposed between Marguerite’s daughter and the duke of Cleves, a near kinsman of the Protestant elector of Saxony and committed ally of Henry VIII, despite Henry’s annulment of his marriage to the duke’s sister after a few months of marriage in 1540.

103 See George Hunston Williams, The Radical Reformation, 3rd edition, Sixteenth Century Essays & Studies 15 (Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1992 [1962]), 907. 104 For the account of this mysterious event, which appears to have been another episode in the Navarrians’ efforts to keep the 1535 concord talks going, see chapter 9.

84

chapter two

This particular union, which promised to cement a three-way alliance between England, France, and the German Protestant princes, never succeeded. Despite this and other setbacks, Marguerite and her court allies doggedly pursued this alliance scheme until Francis I’s death. Italy. In the land of Francis’s dynastic ambitions, Marguerite had one principal ally, Renée de France, who had left France as the bride of Ercole d’Este, son of the duke of Ferrara in 1528. To their court, Marguerite directed evangelicals on the run, most famously Clément Marot and John Calvin, as well as several of her less well-known servants who became members of Renée’s court. In the rest of Italy, Marguerite had a wide reputation for religious fervor, for having insight and influence in French foreign affairs, as well as for admiring Italian culture. She was thus often the target—a willing one—of petitions from humanists, exiled Florentine republicans, and even the pope. However, if we strip away the cases where the quid pro quo of cultural patronage or mercenary motives in political schemes operated, Marguerite had few contacts in Italy with whom she actively collaborated in promoting religious reform. In addition to Renée, she exchanged messages of good will and wishes for greater cooperation with Vittoria Colonna and Cardinal Pier Paolo Vergerio, two leading figures among Italian reformists, during the early 1540s, but no evidence exists that they shared much more than mutual regard. If we take a bird’s eye view of Europe, the Navarrian Network’s tracks can be seen crisscrossing France and marching to strongholds of evangelical sentiment abroad. The broad scope of their ambitions and efforts is impressive. Yet, we also see that they did not succeed in convincing Francis I to implement a magisterial reformation in France. The chapters that follow are therefore the story of a historical path not taken. Their multifaceted efforts are, nevertheless, the main story of the Reformation in France before the Reformed ascendancy and as such deserve a detailed retelling—not as a prelude to those later events in France, but as an integral part of the broader history of the early Reformation in Europe.

CHAPTER THREE

THE VALOIS TRINITY TAKES POWER: NEW REGIME AND CHURCH REFORM, 15151521

Ung seul cueur en troys corps aujourd’huy voy en France, Régnant en doulx accords sans quelque différence, D’amour tant enlacez qu’il semble que Nature, Les formant, ayt chasez dissension, murmure, Pour nourrir sans discords amoureuse alliance. Ung Pin, bien m’en records, en Savoye eut croissance, Si très beau que dès lors le Lys pour sa plaisance Fleurons y a entrez et mys par géniture Ung seul cueur en troys corps. L’un est entre les fors nommé pour sa puissance, Françoys, franc aux effors, des Françoys la fiance. Sa seur bien congnoissez, duchesse nette et pure, Bonne trop plus que assez. O noble norriture! Ung seul cueur en troys corps. —Jean Marot

The Royal Trinity Early in Francis I’s reign, the term “the Royal Trinity” was coined to celebrate the special relationship between the king, his mother, Louise of Savoy, and his sister Marguerite, duchess of Alençon. François Du Moulin de Rochefort, the king’s tutor, had invented it, and poets and artists, such as Jean Marot, quickly adopted it to represent the new royal regime.1 This surprising appropriation of a divine metaphor reflects Francis’s close association of his mother and sister in his rule.

1 Citing Jean Marot’s poem, Anne-Marie Lecoq devotes a rich chapter to the metaphor of the Royal Trinity, which courtiers and the royal threesome itself employed early and frequently. See “L’un des angles du ‘parfait triangle,’ ” in François Ier imaginaire: Symbolique et politique à l’aube de la Renaissance française (Paris: Macula, 1987), 393–433. Myra Orth relates that in François Du Moulin’s translation of Psalm 26 (BnF F.fr. 2088), dedicated to Louise and to Francis, he reprises the trinity metaphor employing Marguerite’s name as a synonym for union. Similarly, the anonymous “Livre de prières”

86

chapter three – the valois trinity takes power

This sharing of power was a natural expression of the tightly-knit family relationship that had developed during the difficult years prior to Francis’s succession. The Valois trinity took form in 1496 when Charles of Angoulême died, leaving his twenty-year-old wife with two young children and significant titular rights but little protection. Although closely guarded by Louis XII, Louise single-mindedly managed the family so that Francis, who was a few fortuitous steps from the throne, would one day become a great lord, and, God willing, king. When Louis XII died on 1 January 1515, the crown passed to Francis. Though he had an indisputable claim to the throne by Salic law, Francis had yet to discover if he could effectively exercise his royal power. Kinship, loyalty, or obligation bound few prelates, high nobles, and royal officials to him. Francis had not even been Louis’ most powerful vassal; Charles of Bourbon had enjoyed this status.2 Additionally, some taint may have rested on the house of Angoulême, since Francis’s father had participated in The Foolish War (La guerre folle), a rebellion of nobles during Charles VIII’s minority that was quickly crushed.3 Nor had Francis established a significant reputation as a warrior. Before his coronation, his most notable exploit was to serve as lieutenant general during a failed campaign to retake Spanish Navarre in 1512, when he was scarcely past adolescence.4

(BnF N.a.lat. 83), an orthodox prayer book, is illustrated with miniatures of the life of Christ, Saint Martin, and the royal family depicted as a trinity. Other literary sources testify to the prevalence of this theme. See Myra Orth “Manuscrits pour Marguerite,” in Marguerite de Navarre, 1492–1992: Actes du colloque international de Pau (1992), ed. Nicole Cazauran and James Dauphiné (Mont-de-Marsan: Editions InterUniversitaires, 1995), 85–105, esp. 87–89. In discussing this theme, Jourda notes a further poem on Marguerite’s place in the Royal Trinity (BnF F.fr. 2964, fol. 27) in Jourda, Marguerite, 59. See also Jean Jacquart, François Ier (Paris: Fayard, 1994 [1981]), 411. 2 The marriage of Charles and Susanne de Bourbon in 1500 unified a large collection of independent duchies and counties into a compact unit in the center of France. For further details and a map, see Léon and Albert Mirot, Manuel de géographie historique de la France, 2 parts, 2nd ed. (Paris: Picard 1947 & 1950; repr. Paris: Picard, 1980) 221, 229–231; for Charles of Bourbon’s status as Francis I’s most powerful vassal, his illustrious military reputation, his regalian powers in his territories, and the offices granted to him later by Francis I, see Knecht, Renaissance Warrior, 42–43 and 200–206. 3 In fact, Charles d’Angoulême’s marriage to Louise of Savoy was one of the prices he had to pay for his defeat. Charles Terrasse, François Ier: Le roi & le règne, vol. 1 (Paris: Grassset, 1943), 10. Cf. Knecht, Renaissance Warrior, 1–3. Though an older work, Terrasse’s study is valuable since he often provides additional details and more extensive quotations than Knecht does on issues that they treat in common. This merit is undermined, however, by a systematic lack of notes. Knecht’s study is without doubt a much finer work, being broader in scope and more penetrating in insight. 4 Knecht, Renaissance Warrior, 15.

new regime and church reform, –

87

Louis XII had feared that “this rude boy will spoil it all,” and so he had carefully prepared to ensure a smooth transmission of power.5 As early as 1500, Louis made plans to marry his daughter, then one year old, to his presumptive heir, Francis, should he fail to have a son. After his wife gave birth to a stillborn male in 1512 and narrowly escaped death, Louis finally gave Francis a prominent place in his household. In 1514, faced with his own failing health and the death of his wife, the king married his eldest daughter, Claude, to Francis. With this link forged, there was no palace revolution or noble rebellion at Francis’s succession. Aided by Louis XII’s advisors, the young king took firm control of power in a well-orchestrated flurry of activity.6 Francis immediately confirmed the rights of the Gallican church, religious orders, universities, parlements, towns, and guilds. In a season of royal public theater, he took up the sacred mantle of kingship in the accustomed coronation ceremonies, holy pilgrimages, and splendid town-entries. Employing his new royal powers, he distributed honors, wealth, and offices to placate powerful vassals, rewarded loyal courtiers, and exalted his family. We will first examine how much power Francis gave to Marguerite and then turn to see how she used it in foreign and religious affairs in the years prior to the outbreak of the first Hapsburg war and her involvement with the Meaux reform.

Marguerite: The Trinity’s Minor Partner and Her New Powers Louise and Marguerite particularly benefited from Francis’s accession. However, his largess was more than a loving gesture. His gifts equipped his mother and sister to serve as helpmates in implementing the projects that dominated the first six years of his reign: retaking Milan; augmenting the different branches of his royal government; strengthening his hold over the nomination of prelates under the Concordat of Bologna (1516); and establishing his power at home against his major vassals, chiefly the house of Bourbon, as well as abroad against his Hapsburg rivals, Maximilian and Charles of Burgundy.

“Ce gros garçon gâtera tout,” Terrasse, François Ier 1, 48. Knecht, Renaissance Warrior, 41–49; Terrasse, François Ier 1, 58–77 includes extensive quotations from Francis I’s coronation oath. 5 6

88

chapter three – the valois trinity takes power

In the Royal Trinity there was a clear division of personas and roles. In her Journal, Louise of Savoy recorded the joy she felt when her beloved ‘Caesar’ was finally crowned: On the feast of St. Paul’s conversion 1515, my son was anointed and consecrated in the Cathedral of Reims. For this I am indebted and obligated to God’s mercy, through which I have been abundantly rewarded for all the trials and tribulations that I suffered in childhood and the flower of my youth. Humility has kept me company and patience has never abandoned me.7

Throughout her Journal, Louise speaks of herself as a sort of lightning rod that attracted and transmitted the divine blessings through which Francis had come to power and was able to rule effectively. She herself did not perceive the royal regime as a trinity. Instead, she saw Marguerite and other close advisors as satellites circling in close orbit around Francis and herself.8 Indeed, ambassadorial reports confirm that in the trinity Louise wielded a preponderant ‘paternal’ authority.9 Though Marguerite was the ‘ghostly’ member of the trinity, she nonetheless played a significant role in Francis’s regime, more in line with the vision of Jean Marot’s poem than with that of Louise’s Journal. A rough measure of Louise and Marguerite’s relative power comes by comparing the gifts they received from Francis. At his accession, Francis granted to Louise the fees paid by towns, guilds, and other corporations for the confirmation of their rights, elevated her Angoulême to a duchy, and

7

“Le jour de la Conversion de saint Paul 1515, mon fils fut oint et sacré en l’église de Rheims. Pour ce, suis-je bien tenue et obligée à la divine miséricorde, par laquelle j’ay esté amplement récompensée de toutes les adversités et inconvénients qui m’estoient advenues en mes premiers ans, et en la fleur de ma jeunesse. Humilité m’a tenu compagnie, et patience ne m’a jamais abandonnée.” Louise of Savoy, Journal de Louise de Savoie, in Nouvelle collection des mémoires pour servir à l’histoire de France, 1st ser., ed. J.-F. Michaud and J.-J. F. Poujoulat (Paris: Guyot frères, 1851), vol. 5, 83–93; 89. 8 Other advisors mentioned by Louise include Queen Claude, René “le bâtard” de Savoie (Louise’s half-brother), as well as the top officer in Louise’s court, Guillaume of Montmorency. See Louise of Savoy, Journal, 89–91. If Francis had been an only son, one can easily imagine that Louise would have welcomed the ‘Madonna and Child’ as a metaphor for their rule. 9 Louise was mentioned frequently in ambassadors’ dispatches because, as Suffolk, West, and Sir Richard Wingfield noted to Henry VIII in February 1515, the duchess of Angoulême “hath a great stroke in all matters with the king her son,” Letters and Papers 2, pt. 1, no. 105, 34. During the period before 1521, ambassadors only mention Marguerite about a tenth as often as Louise and Francis. Nevertheless, they described the royal family as a ‘trinity,’ albeit an imbalanced one, around which orbited Queen Claude and other top courtiers. See Letters and Papers 2, pt. 2, no. 4675, 1433, and Letters and Papers 3, nos. 142 and 145, 46–47; and no. 869, 303–306.

new regime and church reform, –

89

invested her with usufruct of yet another duchy, two counties, and a barony. Moreover, on 15 July 1515, before leading his army on campaign to retake Milan, he made her regent.10 For their part, Marguerite and her husband, Charles of Alençon, obtained the right to name for each profession in every town one new master, who, it was implied, would pay them for the title.11 Francis settled the rights of the hotly contested the county of Armagnac for them.12 In addition, Francis recognized Charles as the second person of the realm, first ‘prince of the blood’, that is, his successor should he die without legitimate sons, and appointed him lieutenant general of Normandy.13 Three years later, Francis endowed Marguerite exclusively with the duchy of Berry and bestowed on her an annual pension of 24,000 livres tournois (l.t.).14 These gifts to Louise, Marguerite, and Charles of Alençon were considerably larger than those given to other courtiers at the time, equipping Louise and Marguerite with concrete powers that made them mighty territorial lords.15 A further indication of the scope and importance of Louise and Marguerite’s new powers can be obtained by comparing the increase in the size and salaries of their households with Francis’s own. The king’s household, together with those of his relatives, made up the core of his royal court. Among the several branches of royal government, Francis’s personal court was an important locus of his power.16 Francis often employed his courtiers and their relatives in foreign affairs, domestic administration, and the church. During Francis’s reign, his personal

10

Knecht, Renaissance Warrior, 71. CAF 1, no. 52, 9. 12 For the history of this disputed succession and a full bibliography see Jourda, Marguerite, 44–45, 52; and for Marguerite’s territories and revenues see La FerrièrePercy, Livre de dépenses, 11 ff. 13 He was made governor of Normandy on 6 February 1515, CAF 5, no. 15758, 212. 14 16 January 1518: “Mandement à Jean Sapin, receveur général de Languedoïl et Guyenne, de payer à Marguerite de France, duchesse d’Alençon, sœur unique du roi, la somme de 24,000 l.t., à titre de pension. Amboise, 16 janvier 1517 [1518 n.s.].” CAF 5, no. 16551, 362. 15 For instance, Francis bestowed upon his most powerful vassal, Charles of Bourbon, the office of constable and raised his county of Vendôme to the status of a duchy. Others received less than Louise, Marguerite, and Bourbon in accordance with their rank and importance. Knecht, Renaissance Warrior, 42–43. 16 Knecht has skillfully described the relationship between the king’s household and the several branches of royal administration. See chapter 6, “The king and his court” in his Renaissance Warrior, 105–141, esp. 113–123. 11

90

chapter three – the valois trinity takes power

household grew markedly in number and total wages, far outstripping those of his predecessors. Louise and Marguerite, like the king and all the great nobles, relied upon an extensive number of ‘loyal servants’ to exercise power and manage their affairs for whom, in turn, they sought to secure royal offices, thereby increasing their influence beyond their own territorial or administrative fiefdoms. Table 1 below gives some indication of the relative size, growth, and importance of Marguerite’s household.17 Table 1. Royal Family Household Accounts Household

Year

No. of persons Wages in l.t.

Francis, duke of Angoulême

1512

Francis I

1517

Francis I

1523

540

Francis I

1535

622

214,918

Louise of Savoy

1515

203

28,114

Louise of Savoy

1522

314

40,259

Alençon

1512

128

12,365

Alençon

1517

189

21,266

47% increase in personnel since 1512 72% increase in wages since 1512

Alençon

1524

241

29,121

88% increase in personnel since 1512 136% increase in wages since 1512 28% increase in personnel since 1517 37% increase in wages since 1517

200

Remarks Larger in number than Louis XII’s court of same year

65,915 170% increase in personnel since 1512 211% increase in personnel since 1512 226% increase in wages since 1517

54% increase in personnel since 1515 43% increase in wages since 1515

17 Figures for Francis I are taken from Knecht, Renaissance Warrior, 118 and 120; Terrasse, François Ier 1, 48. Figures for the households of Louise of Savoy and Charles and Marguerite of Alençon have been compiled from Lefranc, Comptes. Saulnier counts slightly higher wage totals for the Alençon household, putting them in 1517 at 23,000 l.t. and in 1524 at 33,000 l.t. in round figures; see Saulnier 1977, 41. These figures have proved sufficient for our purpose. For a detailed study of Francis I’s finances, see Philippe Hamon, L’argent du roi: Les finances sous François Ier (Paris: Comité pour l’histoire économique et financière de la France, 1994).

new regime and church reform, –

91

The information in table 1 allow us to make a few revealing comparisons.18 First, Louise and the Alençons clearly benefited materially from Francis’s accession. After Francis came to power their households expanded respectively 54% between 1515 and 1522 and 47% between 1512 and 1517, pointing to sizable development in their direct patronage.19 These rates of increase were certainly less elevated than that of Francis’s household, 170% between 1512 and 1523 compared with 88% for the Alençons between 1512 and 1524, but nevertheless they were very substantial. The combined total wages of Louise and the Alençons’ household budgets (in 1515 and 1517 respectively) were roughly equal to three-quarters of Francis’s in 1517. The accounts from 1522 to 1524 show that, compared with Francis’s rolls in 1524, Louise employed threefifths as many servants in 1522 and the Alençons slightly under half as many in 1523. In those years, Louise and the Alençons’ combined households were more numerous than Francis’s own house.20 Louise’s and Marguerite’s disposable income probably increased even more sizably during this period. In 1524, the Alençons were spending only 7,855 l.t. more on personnel than they had in 1517, yet, in the meantime, Marguerite had received Berry and her large annual pension (24,000 l.t.). Obviously, Marguerite had control over substantial funds that were outside her husband’s control and did not go to household wages.21 Ready cash was an important source of power and patronage.

18

The members of the king’s household and those of his children (240 persons in 1523) were supposed to be paid from the income generated from his royal demesne lands. These revenues were insufficient to support the growing royal court. In 1521, Francis revoked all previous alienations of royal lands in order to restore his demesne income, which he had had to supplement from his ‘extraordinary’ fisc. The latter, raised from the taille, special grants, and the gabelle was supposed to cover war expenses. “War expenses” presumably included his pension budget, which he used to secure the good will of French nobles, mercenary captains, allies, and potential foes. In 1521, a war year, Francis paid royal pensions amounting to 419,570 l.t., or roughly six times his personal household budget for 1517. See BnF Fontanieu 173–174, 4 July, “État des pensions payées par le roi.” Cited in Journal d’un bourgeois de Paris, ed. Ludovic Lalanne, Société de l’Histoire de France (Paris: Renouard, 1854; repr. New York, 1965), appendix, 472. 19 Louise’s household budget for 1515, the first year of Francis’s reign, may already contain a sizable increase. 20 These rough statistics need to be adjusted for the fact that the different households often employed the same persons at the same time. See below. 21 Quite possibly large amounts of this supplemental revenue would have been spent on following Francis’s court in its ceaseless migrations. While Francis’s household wages in 1517 were 65,915 l.t., in 1516 the actual cost of running his court was 622,899 l.t.,

92

chapter three – the valois trinity takes power

These comparisons run the danger of creating the false impression that the Valois court was neatly compartmentalized. An extensive prosopography would reveal the full details, but it is evident by inspection that the Royal Trinity’s households were tightly commingled.22 The ruling family shared personnel—often the same person accumulated offices in two or more of these households—or hired from the same families. Briçonnet, Brinon, Frotté, Izernay, Montmorency, and Olivier are but a few of the surnames that their rolls had in common. This mingling was in fact physical. During Louise or Marguerite’s frequent stays at court their retinues accompanied them. What role did Marguerite and her husband play in Francis’s regime during the period before the outbreak of the first Hapsburg war in 1521? Dynastic ambition—that desire to increase wealth, gain glory, and win honor for oneself and one’s lineage—animated Francis I as much as it had any of his predecessors. Since the days of Hugues Capet (r. 987–996), French kings had sought to reestablish regalian power that had devolved into the hands of local lords.23 The obstacles to the growth of monarchical power were both internal and external. Cadet branches of the royal house tended to develop their own identities and dynastic ambitions that opposed the expansion of monarchical power. The most important example is the house of Burgundy, whose dukes created a veritable kingdom extending from the eastern border of France with the Empire northwestward into the Low Countries. Slowly and fitfully, French kings reestablished their lordship in France by military force or through marriage alliances.24 Both methods were usually sealed with legal charters renewing and specifying the king’s rights. In practice,

much of which was spent in feeding his numerous retainers, foddering their horses, and paying other transportation costs. It is not clear if Francis paid for the traveling costs of his relatives’ entourages, but he certainly was not responsible for provisioning everyone, as foreign ‘resident’ ambassadors bitterly complained. The court at full strength numbered nearly 10,000 and took 18,000 horses to move; see Knecht, Renaissance Warrior, 123 and 131. 22 Short of a full prosopography, a rough sketch of the situation could be drawn by comparing the names in Louise and Marguerite’s rolls with the index from the Catalogue des acts de François Ier (CAF ) to determine how many had multiple appointments or successive ones in the different houses of the royal family. 23 See Mirot, Géographie historique, 104–233, especially 104–111 and 224–233. 24 For a discussion of royal marriage policy towards cadet houses of the royal blood and major seigneurial houses over the longue durée, specifically with reference to Marguerite’s role in that history, see chapter 2.

new regime and church reform, –

93

administering the royal demesne and maintaining royal prerogatives in the seigneuries of the king’s vassals was an unending problem. In the face of these difficulties, Francis employed Marguerite as a loyal lieutenant to help him govern territories not tightly bound by royal control, such as the county of Armagnac. The rights to this seigneury had been disputed since the late fifteenth century by the crown, the house of Angoulême, and the house of Alençon, who were the legal heirs according to the last count’s will.25 Some of the sharper differences were settled in 1509 when Francis, then duke of Angoulême, renounced his claim in favor of Charles d’Alençon, who was marrying his sister. At that date, Louis XII had orchestrated this clause in the marriage agreement to manage the dynastic claims of the noble houses close to the throne, but he did not allow Charles and Marguerite to take control in Armagnac. Royal administration of the county only ceased in favor of the Alençons when Francis became king. In December 1515, Francis suppressed the royal sénéchaussée of Armagnac in favor of the duke of Alençon and Marguerite, allowing them to appoint their own lieutenants, lawyers, procurators, and other officers.26 Francis justified his policy by stating that he desired to bestow upon Charles and Marguerite the same powers enjoyed by the last count of Armagnac, Jean V. By 1517, Marguerite and Charles were employing two new officers specifically charged with handling their affairs in Armagnac. The bishop of Nîmes, Michel Briçonnet, received 375 l.t. in 1517 and an income worth 400 l.t. in 1524 as their “vice-chancellor of Armagnac.”27 Berrangier Maynier, their master of requests in Armagnac, received 80 l.t. as a councillor in 1517 and 120 l.t. as a pensioner in 1524. These officials, employed as members of their household, were Marguerite and Charles’ most important representatives in the region. Francis clearly trusted his sister and brother-in-law to govern effectively and ensure the county’s loyalty to the crown. A stable regime in Armagnac was desirable from the perspective of royal government, since it would put an end to the jurisdictional turf-wars, suits, and fragmented administration that had apparently made it a burden on, rather than a resource for, the royal fisc. For example, in March 1516,

25 For the complex history of the succession of Armagnac, see Mirot, Géographie historique, 201–203, 207, 209, 215, and especially 232–233. 26 CAF 1, no. 579, 99. 27 Neither of them appeared in this capacity in 1512. For these details see Lefranc, Comptes, 30, 39, 45, 54, and 56.

94

chapter three – the valois trinity takes power

Francis streamlined the complex legal situation in which four jurisdictions—the Parlement of Bordeaux, the Parlement of Toulouse, the sénéchaussée of Agen, and the sénéchaussée of Armagnac—had legal competence over different parts of the county by placing it under the Parlement of Toulouse.28 Local officials resisted this settlement. During Louise’s regency in 1515 they went so far as to revive the royal claim, which Francis had already abandoned, that the duchy had escheated to the crown when Jean V’s goods had been confiscated.29 After his return from the conquest of Milan, Francis settled the matter with another edict. In the preamble, he notes that previously royal officials in the region had obstructed his will because they feared for their positions. Putting aside their complaints, Francis presents himself as a good monarch, who, by establishing the rights of his beloved sister and brother-in-law, wanted to increase the realm’s security. He ordered that: Lectore, which is one of the strongest and chief [cities] in Guyenne [Aquitaine], be guarded and maintained and that the subjects in the territory of Armagnac be preserved from every vexation and trouble.30

Local opposition to the new regime in Armagnac continued. In April 1518, Francis had a case brought by his sister and brother-in-law against a local lord transferred to the royal Grand Conseil, presumably to ensure a judgment in their favor.31 Again, in July 1519, Francis ordered that

28

This act unified the higher, appellate level of royal jurisdiction. It did not suppress the Alençon’s rights of first justice. “Ordonnance replaçant la sénéchaussée d’Armagnac dans le ressort du Parlement de Toulouse,” Ordonnances 1, no. 81, 381–383. 29 The unfortunate Jean V of Armagnac had had his lands stripped from him upon conviction for his manifest crimes, including incest with his sister, intrigues with the English, and rebellion against Louis XI. 30 “. . . ladicte ville et cité de Lectore, qui est l’une des plus fortes et principales dudict pays de Guyenne, estre conservée et entretenue, et lesdicts subjects desdicts pays d’Armaignac estre preservés de toutes vexations et travaulx.” In “Ordonnance portant que la sénéchal d’Armagnac cessera d’être officier royal, sera nommé par le duc d’Alençon et rendra la justice au nom de ce dernier,” Ordonnances 1, no. 100, 507–513, 511. 31 13 April 1518: “Lettres d’évocation au Grand conseil du procès du duc d’Alençon et de sa femme, Marguerite de Valois, contre Jean de Lévis, seigneur de Mirepoix, à l’occasion de la succession d’Armagnac.” CAF 1, no. 32303, 584. The nature of the case is not stated. However, it appears to be a dispute over local seigniorial rights. Mirepoix is in the département of Ariège, not far from the département of Gers, which is roughly equal in extent to former county of Armagnac. It seems that the successful resolution of their dispute came about much later with a marriage alliance. See Jourda Répertoire, no. 654. On 22 January [1537], Marguerite suggested that “Mr. de Lévis” marry Mlle. Tournon, who was one of her ‘Demoiselles.’ See Lefranc, Comptes, for 1529. For

new regime and church reform, –

95

copies of the registers of seigniorial dues for Armagnac were to be kept in the local archives as well as with his financial ministers at the Chambres de Comptes at Paris and with his Trésoriers de France.32 Evidently, Francis sought to prevent anyone in the county from contesting or escaping the payments now owed to Marguerite and Charles. In sum, the Armagnac settlement offered Francis several benefits: it gratified a favorite, ended a situation in which locals could exploit a divided jurisdiction to resist the chain of command emanating from the king, and entrusted a key region on the southern border to trusty hands. Francis’s grant of the duchy of Berry, the county of Bourges, and several dependent seigneuries to Marguerite in 1517 achieved similar goals. Francis gained clear advantages without compromising his royal power by entrusting Marguerite with Berry. There was one major difference in this case: Marguerite’s husband, Charles, was excluded from the gift.33 He was likewise excluded from the 24,000 l.t. pension that Francis bestowed upon Marguerite. The exclusion has been interpreted as an effort by Francis to give his sister a measure of independence from her husband, whom scholars usually depict as a kind, if rustic, feudal lord, a man entirely unworthy of his cultured and sensitive wife.34 Marguerite seems to have had little affection for Charles. That no exchange of letters between Marguerite and Charles survives is not in itself proof of her estrangement. More telling is his absence in her intensive and intimate exchange of letters with Bishop Guillaume Briçonnet (1521–1524). Although she frequently discusses the health and activities of the rest of her family, Marguerite only mentioned Charles incidentally when

Marguerite’s subsequent involvement in the marriages of the Mirepoix-Léran household in 1538–1541, see Jourda, Répertoire, nos. 783 and 853. In a parallel case, Charles d’Alençon and Marguerite were at law with Henri d’Albret, who possessed neighboring territories in the region. See BnF F.fr. 3920, fol. 195, for a document relevant to the d’Alençons’ suit with Henri d’Albret. 32 27 July 1519: “Lettres concernant la tenue des comptes des terres et seigneuries de l’ancienne maison d’Armagnac, accordées par le roi à sa sœur Marguerite et au duc d’Alençon. Ils seront désormais tenus en trois expéditions: 1. pour les archives desdites terres; 2. pour la Chambre des Comptes de Paris; 3 pour les Trésoriers de France. Paris, 27 juillet 1519. Copie collationnée à l’original par un secrétaire du roi au Parl. de Toulouse. Arch. de Tarn-et-Garonne, fonds de la seigneurie de Caussade.” CAF 1, no. 1063, 191. 33 11 October 1517, “Don du duché de Berry à Marguerite de France, duchesse d’Alençon, sœur du roi. Argentan, 11 octobre 1517. Enreg. au Parl. de Paris, sous certaines réserves, le 4 février 1518 (n.s.).” CAF 1, no. 742, 128. 34 Jourda, Marguerite, 52.

96

chapter three – the valois trinity takes power

discussing her inability to have children or his young protégé, Georges d’Armagnac, whom they were sending to Meaux for education. Even if Francis only intended to lighten Marguerite’s dependence on a husband whom she did not love, that would not account for the choice or the timing of his gift. Francis explains in the official act of donation that he desired to have her [Marguerite] participate in the graces, honors, and goods that I have and have come to me [as king] . . . and also that she be better able to provide for the honorable maintenance of her rank.35

Again, Francis invokes his brotherly love and concern for her station, but there were additional legal and strategic considerations that he does not mention. During the fifteenth century Berry had been used as a royal apanage, a territory normally given to support one of the king’s younger sons and their male heirs until it would escheat to the crown with the extinction of that line. Prior to Francis’s donation of Berry, Louis XII had bestowed this territory on his former wife, Jeanne de France, in compensation for agreeing to allow their marriage to be annulled so that he could marry Charles VIII’s widow, Anne of Brittany. After this territory reverted to the crown upon her death early in Francis I’s reign, he first intended to protect his northeastern border by offering Berry along with the hand of his sister-in-law, Renée de France, to Charles of Hapsburg, heir to the Burgundian territories outside France and a claimant to the remainder within. By 1517, the proposed match no longer made political sense. Francis’s powerful neighbor had become a threatening enemy: Charles was by then king of Spain and favored to succeed his grandfather, Maximilian of Hapsburg, as Holy Roman Emperor. Although Francis could have kept Berry as part of crown lands, he bestowed it on Marguerite in 1518 along with several strategic castles in the region that Louis XII had kept from Jeanne de France. Over the next ten years Francis continued to augment Marguerite’s powers and

35 “[ D]esirans de tout nostre cueur . . . la [Marguerite] faire participante de partie des graces, honneurs et biens, que avons et qui nous sont advenuz . . . et aussi à ce qu’elle puisse mieulx fournier à l’entretenement honnorable de son estat . . .,” in “Don du Duché-Pairie de Berry à Marguerite de France, duchesse d’Alençon, sœur du Roi,” Ordonnances 2, no. 139, 172–176, 172.

new regime and church reform, –

97

revenues in Berry.36 These gifts illustrate again that Francis trusted his sister to secure loyalty and obedience in an important territory, preferring that she do it without giving her husband any legal hold over it. The strategy was sound, for Marguerite and her husband managed to cow local nobles from Berry in the 1520s, when some who were sympathetic to the treasonous duke of Bourbon resisted Francis I’s requests to help pay his huge ransom to Charles V.37 Marguerite, therefore, like her mother, had been materially equipped by Francis to help him rule. In augmenting their power and delegating to them responsibility over these territories, he was strengthening his control, even when this necessitated alienating crown lands. As further proof, we note that in 1521, when Francis unilaterally rescinded all past alienations of crown lands (which had been mortgaged in order to raise ready cash at the expense of long term income), he exempted those seigneuries that he had granted to Louise, Marguerite, and his aunt, Philiberte de Savoie and her husband, the duke of Nemours, Giuliano de’ Medici, Pope Leo X’s brother.38

Marguerite’s Support of Francis’s Rule: Foreign Affairs and the Concordat In the early years of Francis I’s reign, the royal family worked together as a well-functioning team to solidify his rule. Marguerite’s actions prior to 1521 all conformed to her family’s well-coordinated plans. During this period, however, she seems to have played a smaller role in her brother’s foreign affairs than she would in later years. Similarly, on the domestic war-front, no evidence has surfaced that she helped to raise troops, war materials, or money to pay for them as she would after that

36

See CAF 1, no. 742, 128; no. 2362, 447; CAF 2, no. 7268, 724; CAF 7, no. 25618, 448; no. 25912, 482; no. 26268, 512; and no. 26997, 567. 37 For a well-rounded discussion of Marguerite’s career as duchess of Berry, see Françoise Michaud-Fréjaville, “Marguerite d’Angoulême, reine de Navarre, duchesse de Berry, ‘laquelle a fort humainement traité ses sujets de Berry,’ ” in Marguerite de Navarre, 1492–1992: Actes du colloque international de Pau (1992), ed. Nicole Cazauran and James Dauphiné (Mont-de-Marsan: Editions InterUniversitaires, 1995), 45–57. 38 11 August 1521, the king declared in favor of his mother, his aunt, and his sister, confirming them in their rights over their territories and exempting them from his general edict (July 1521) that reunited all alienated territories to the crown; see CAF 1, no. 1396, 256. For the full text of this edict see, Ordonnances 3, no. 294, 73–77 and additional notes in CAF 8, 325–326.

98

chapter three – the valois trinity takes power

date. In those years, her chief diplomatic activities consisted of receiving foreign envoys and presiding over ceremonies of state. Yet, a few ambassadors explicitly report that they were cultivating good relations with her as a possible means to influence royal policy.39 When her personal intervention could make a difference, Marguerite worked to further Francis’s policy. Such was the case when the royal family tried to regain its losses in the duchy of Savoy. The lands of Louise of Savoy’s half-brother, René, had been confiscated in this independent duchy by their half-brother Duke Charles II. These losses were particularly grievous since Savoy lay on the road to Italy, the target of Francis’s dynastic ambitions. In 1518, Francis I and his mother sent envoys to ask Duke Charles to return the confiscated lands to René. Marguerite seconded this embassy with a letter to her uncle, asking him to grant the royal family’s wish. Suitably, their ambassador was Jean Calveau, bishop of Senlis, a trusted servant, who served both the king and the Alençons as councillor.40 They thus kept among themselves this important matter of state, which was also a family affair. René was much in favor. By forcing the Parlement of Paris to register the Concordat of Bologna, he had just helped his nephew win a great domestic battle that would lay the baseline for Francis I’s churchstate policy during his entire reign.41 After the Concordat became law, Marguerite helped to augment Francis’s power over the church and Parlement of Paris, which were hostile to the crown’s hold over the Gallican church. Francis I’s victory at Marignano in 1515 had prepared the way for this royal victory over Gallicanism on the home front.42 Shortly after the battle, the advisors of Pope Leo X and Francis negotiated a deal

39 For Marguerite’s diplomatic role and importance at court in the early years of Francis’s reign, see Jourda, Marguerite 1, 55–56; 2, 1087. In 1510, she received ambassadors from Spain. On 16 May 1515 the English ambassador, the duke of Suffolk, requested that Henry VIII write a letter to Marguerite, since he thought her to be powerful at court. In 1519, the Venetian ambassador paid an official visit to Marguerite, by which time, he noted, she was taking the place of the queen in public ceremonies. 40 For Marguerite’s letter of credence, 4 March [1518], see Jourda, Répertoire, no. 2. Jean Calveau is listed on the Alençon rolls as one of their three councillors in 1512 at 200 livres wages and in 1517 after his elevation as bishop of Senlis as a master of requests at 140 l.t.; see Lefranc, Comptes, 29, 32, and 45. 41 René de Savoie conveyed Francis I’s direct order to the Parlement of Paris to register the Concordat and preside over its debates. 42 For a full account of the Concordat negotiations, see Knecht, Renaissance Warrior, 93–104.

new regime and church reform, –

99

that ensured their masters would gain greater control over the French Church’s riches. The Concordat gave the French king the right to nominate candidates to all the prelacies in the kingdom, excepting those few cases where subordinates (cathedral canons or monks) enjoyed an explicit papal privilege to elect their superior. Hitherto, independent election had been, at least in theory, the centerpiece of Gallican liberty.43 The parlements, universities, religious houses, and cathedral chapters therefore resisted the registration and application of the Concordat to the point of open insubordination.44 Facing threats of retaliation from the king, the parlement finally registered the Concordat in May 1518, noting that it was done under duress. Thereafter, Marguerite helped to consolidate this victory and to extend royal control over the prelacies still exempt from royal nomination.45 A year after its registration, the conflict between the crown and the Gallican party shifted to the remaining sees enjoying independent election. The first of several major battles took place in November 1519 when the archbishopric of Bourges, which was in Marguerite’s newly acquired duchy of Berry, fell vacant.46 In December, Marguerite wrote letters along with the king, their mother, and Admiral Bonnivet to the cathedral chapter recommending the king’s candidate, his confessor, Guillaume Petit, bishop of Troyes.47 On 11 January 1520, the chapter

43 Under the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges (1438) the king had the right to present or recommend a candidate to the electors. Under guise of this procedure, the king used bribes and outright threats to secure, though not without fail, his candidate’s election. See Jules Thomas, Le Concordat de 1516: Ses origines, son histoire au XVIe siècle, 3 vols. (Paris: A. Picard, 1910) and Marilyn M. Edelstein, “Church Patronage in France on the Eve of the Reformation,” in Renaissance Society and Culture: Essays in Honor of Eugene F. Rice, Jr., ed. John Monfasani and Roland G. Musto (New York Italica Press, 1991), 33–49. 44 For the plays, placards, and parlement’s rebellion against the registration of the Concordat as well as the resulting imprisonments, see Lalanne, Bourgeois, 63–64 and 69–70; Knecht, Renaissance Warrior, 232–236. 45 This effort would finally succeed in 1531, when Clement VII stripped the right of election from the remaining churches and religious houses that had enjoyed it, giving it to Francis I for his lifetime. See Thomas, Le Concordat, vol. 2, 75–77, and vol. 3, 100. 46 Thomas, Le Concordat, vol. 3, 101. 47 “Rég. Capit., 19 décembre 1519: ‘Hodie presentatis eisdem venerabilis dominis domini nostri regis Francie, dominarum ducissarum Angolisme matris et Biturie sororis ejusdem regis ac admiralis Fancie litteris missivis in papiro scriptis ipsorumque et suorum secretariorum signis signatis, per dominos de Vastan, Nançay, Neufby, Sallat et Ja. Leroy, regios oratores et legatos: dicti domini de Vastan, Nançay, Neufby et Sallat, jussu et mandato domini nostri regis ac ipsarum dominarum et admiralis, eosdem venerabiles, earumdem litterarum insequendo tenorem, rogarunt et obnixe precati sunt ut in eorum ecclesie futurum archiepiscopum et pastorem dominum episcopum Trecensem

100

chapter three – the valois trinity takes power

elected a canon from a local noble family, François de Bueil, by a vote of 16 to 12. The royal party, including the dean of the Cathedral, contested the election. Francis refused to recognize de Bueil and seized the episcopal temporalia, claiming that the see remained vacant. Ironically, contravening the liberties of the Gallican church, which limited the papal curia’s jurisdiction over benefice suits, de Bueil’s supporters appealed to Rome. On 1 July 1521, Leo X decided in favor of the majority. Even so, Francis continued to refuse to recognize de Bueil. When the new Archbishop de Bueil made his formal entry, the University of Bourges, a royal foundation, did not partake in the celebrations. Shortly thereafter, in an act of Gallican solidarity, the Parlement of Paris released his archiepiscopal property. Two years later, Marguerite again fought a skirmish that furthered her own interests as well as those of the crown. In December 1520, Marguerite began the campaign to have the Parlement of Paris accept one of her servants, Philibert Le Masuyer, as a clerical councillor.48 Notably, clerical councillors had formed the backbone of Gallican opposition in parlement to the registration of the Concordat in 1518. The parlement accepted Le Masuyer in January 1521—one of six new members for that year—after Marguerite had mustered support from the king and Chancellor Duprat in his favor.49 Technically, Le Masuyer was not eligible to become a clerical councillor—there were also lay ones—since he was married. Marguerite recognized this, but she claimed that since it was traditional practice to ignore the rule, they should exempt him from the regulation and pose no further obstacles to his reception. In exchange for accepting Le Masuyer, the parlement begged the king,

ipsius regis confessorem eligere seu unanimiter postulare vellent et dignarentur, se sic rem eisdem domino nostro regi, dominabus et admirali predictis gratam facturos pollicientes et asserentes. Locum tenens baillivi Biturie, Jo. Fradet, advocatus et procurator regii Bitur. ad hoc se onus a supradicto domino nostro rege et dominabus habere dicentes, id quod supradictum est precierunt et requisierunt. Sicque major et scabbini hujus ville et civitatis Bituricensis instantissime orarunt,’ ” in Louis-Hector Chandru de Raynal, Histoire de Berry depuis les temps les plus anciens jusqu’en 1789, 3 vols. (Bourges: Vermeil, 1844–1847), vol. 3, 285; A Cher, 8 G 161 Délibérations capitulaire, fol. 124r. Jourda, Répertoire, no. 5. 48 Some 200 strong, half of the parlement’s members were supposed to be in orders (conseillers clercs). Terrasse 1, 172. 49 For Marguerite’s letters to the parlement and an implied response see Jourda, Répertoire, nos. 12, 13, and 14. For further letters, not known to Jourda, from Marguerite and Antoine Duprat to the parlement on the same issue, see Suzanne Clémencet and Michel François, eds., Lettres reçues et envoyées par le Parlement de Paris 1376–1596: Inventaire analytique (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1961), nos. 1080 (appendix A no. 10005) and 1073ter.

new regime and church reform, –

101

Duprat, and Marguerite that it be the last exception and that royal orders be issued to reaffirm the law barring laymen from holding seats designated for clerics.50 Le Masuyer was not the first layman to hold a parlementary post reserved for someone in orders. His predecessor, François Crespin, also a member of Marguerite’s household, had been granted a dispensation for being married when he was received in April 1518.51 In 1521, two more councillors were exempted from the regulation so that they could become conseillers clercs.52 Francis and Marguerite’s efforts to install their handpicked laymen for such offices seem to have been an effort to stock the parlement with members amenable to the royal will. Le Masuyer would sit on the bench until his death in 1542. Nor was he the last layman to hold such a clerical post with royal dispensation.53 Recently, scholars have downplayed the importance of the Concordat, stressing that it simply legitimated de facto royal control over episcopal and monastic elections, at most easing the application of royal will.54 This view does not explain the near-rebellious opposition by universities, parlements, and cathedral chapters to its registration. Later, in 1525, when Francis’s capture at Pavia left France with a weak regency government, the Gallican party seized the opportunity to try to overturn the Concordat. In exchange for their support of her government and cooperation in raising Francis’s ransom, the parlement demanded first that the regent, Louise of Savoy, reestablish the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges.55

50 For Le Masuyer’s reception and the parlement’s several requests for an edict reserving clerical offices to celibate churchmen see CAF 7, no. 25974, 489 and Clémencet, Parlement, nos. 1426–28 citing AN X1A 9324A, nos. 71–73. 51 Marguerite intended Le Masuyer to replace Crespin, who had just been promoted within the parlement. See her first letter to parlement in Jourda, Répertoire, no. 12, 6. On Crespin, see further CAF 7, nos. 25962 and 25963, 488. 52 See CAF 7, nos. 25977 and 25982, 489. 53 For another layman who was granted a dispensation from being in orders when taking a post as a conseiller clerc, see CAF 7, no. 26087, 498. 54 Knecht, Renaissance Warrior, 100–103. On the other hand, Edelstein concludes with good reason that the Concordat was intended to contribute significantly to the centralization of Francis I’s power, though she recognizes that, for lack of studies of the episcopacy during previous reigns, it cannot be established whether Francis actually derived greater power from the church than had his predecessors. See her “Church Patronage,” 47–49. 55 After calling for prayers for Francis I and France, the Parlement of Paris’ thirtytwo item remonstrance to Louise, dated 10 April 1525, began with a demand that the Concordat be abolished and the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges restored. See BnF Clairambault 324, fols. 269r–273v for a copy of the original act. Knecht mentions the

102

chapter three – the valois trinity takes power

Money drove the conflict over the chief benefices. Members of the high bourgeoisie had a stake in the Gallican principle of election since their family members, along with those of the sword nobility, monopolized the chairs of cathedral chapters and religious foundations. Only a few of their number were beholden to the royal family for their positions. Even if the principle of election did not guarantee the selection of a Gallican candidate against royal will, it gave enough power to the chapters to ensure that their members could exact some compensation during the horse-trading for votes. Marguerite promised precisely this sort of reward in the Le Masuyer case. She offered to gratify the parlement if they would accept her faithful servant. The parlement asked Marguerite to pressure Francis to issue the edict reinforcing the law against laymen holding clerical councillorships. From the perspective of royal policy, this was out of the question. In her letter of thanks, Marguerite assured the parlement that she and Le Masuyer had done their duty in presenting their request to the king, but warned that chancellor Duprat’s answer on his behalf was less than gratifying.56 To see the Concordat as driven only by financial interest would be a mistake, but to deny its centrality would be to miss the point altogether. The medieval church, and certainly not least in France, had always been rich. Each ecclesiastical subdivision had come to have a known value in gold florins (the money of account in the papal chancery) based on its income from all sources, secular and religious.57 In theory, prelates, namely the heads of religious orders, priors, abbots, bishops, and archbishops, to whom the lower clerical ranks owed obedience, received control over the worldly goods of their community. In practice, the elective principle saw to it that any successful candidate would have to share these goods among his electors. Even so, the lion’s share went to ecclesiastical lords, who were frequently absentee office holders. These prelates in turn delegated a portion of their income to vicars who ran

remonstrance but does not itemize its content in Renaissance Warrior, 232–234, referring to the original act AN X1A 1527, fol. 321. 56 Jourda edited the letter. See Jourda, Répertoire, no. 14. 57 The value of each prelacy was readily found in printed handbooks. Shortly after Francis I was granted full powers to nominate every new prelate in the realm, a handbook on the value of prelacies, the Numerus et tituli cardinalium, . . . Taxae et valor beneficiorum (Paris, 1534), was published by the well-known printer of Marguerite’s Miroir, Antoine Augereau.

new regime and church reform, –

103

the institution. With the Concordat, the king was able to arbitrate more effectively, if not completely to control, the commerce in benefices. The king’s increase in authority under the Concordat was essential. Now he was assured that his candidate would be chosen, avoiding long and sometimes losing struggles, as in the case of Guillaume Petit at Bourges. The new procedure freed up time and resources for other affairs. Moreover, the Concordat allowed the king to pay his loyal servants out of church revenues instead of the royal fisc. When in need, he could more easily request subsidies from bishops who were beholden to him.

The Royal Family’s Religion and Late Medieval Reform When Francis I ascended to the throne, the call for a reform of the church in head and members had been echoing through Europe for well over a century. Reform programs had been articulated and implemented in fits and starts but without sustained success. The ideology of French kingship had long honed the image of the monarch’s spiritual qualities and duties. As the Most Christian King, his first responsibility was to defend the faith from attack by heretics and infidels as well as to respond to those resounding calls for reform. But did Francis I have a vision of reform when he came to the throne, and if so, what was it? Did Marguerite and the rest of his family share it? In comparison with his predecessors, Francis and his advisors developed new methods of governing that pointed the way toward stronger central government. A key element of this development had been the establishment of the Concordat. Was Francis I’s religious policy equally innovative and vigorous? Did he plan to make use of his augmented powers within the church for its reformation? Answering these questions for the early period will help us assess the king’s religious policy after the Luther affair shook up every aspect of personal piety and corporate religion in Europe. We cannot discuss the royal family’s response to the call for reform without appreciating the role of religion in justifying monarchical power. The king’s reputation and right to rule rested on his protection and promotion of the faith. Piety seemed to be not so much a prerequisite as an inherent quality of kingship that—at least in royal ideology—the French monarch received with his unction. After his sacral anointing with the holy oil, the king swore to the clergy, nobles, and corporations of the realm to uphold the faith and to defend the rights of the Gallican

104

chapter three – the valois trinity takes power

church. The monarch’s popularity depended heavily on living up to this ideal. Louis XII was thought to be pious, earning him much good will in his day and, despite his conflicts with the pope, fond memories long after his death. Later in the century, Henry III’s violation of this virtue by trafficking with his heretical heir apparent, Henry d’Albret, the future Henry IV, and by having the duke and cardinal of Guise assassinated, cost him his reputation for sanctity as well as his life. Louise, Francis, and Marguerite were ostensibly pious by the standards of their day. Early in the reign, they seem to have left their subjects with few doubts about their religious devotion. Francis manifested a lively sense of his spiritual duty and of his powers as God’s anointed. After his coronation, he went on foot to the shrine of Saint-Marcoul—the traditional post-coronation pilgrimage—to receive, or at least have reinforced, the royal touch against scrofula.58 Early in his reign, he led a penitential procession after a courtier stole a monstrance, the vessel used to display a consecrated host.59 Such public acts of piety by Francis and the rest of the court figure prominently among Louise’s highly selective journal entries. In deed and written record, their pious acts justified his rule. On the issue of church reform, the royals sought to reinvigorate the late-medieval Observant movement that had gained momentum in the early 1490s.60 Led by the Franciscan Olivier Maillard and Jean Standonck, rector of the College of Montaigue, a reformist party had attempted to renew the religious orders by returning them to the rigor of their original rules. Such reformers hoped that by restoring key monasteries,

58 Knecht discusses the differing views about whether the king received his power to heal during his coronation or upon making his visit to Saint-Marcoul. See his Renaissance Warrior, 45–49. See further Marc Bloch, Les rois thaumaturges (Strasbourg: Imprimerie alsaciennes, 1924); The Royal Touch: Sacred Monarchy and Scrofula in England and France, trans. J. E. Anderson (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1973; New York: Dorset Press, 1989). 59 Louise of Savoy, Journal, 92, col. 2. 60 For the following account, two classic works provide much of the detailed information about late medieval monastic and mendicant reform movements: Pierre Imbart de la Tour, Les origines de la Réforme, 4 vols. (Paris, 1905–1935), vol. 2, L’église catholique: La crise et la Renaissance, esp. 486–536, and Augustin Renaudet, Préréforme et humanisme á Paris pendant les premières guerres d’Italie (1494–1517), 2nd ed. (Paris: Librairie d’Argences, 1953; repr. Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1981). Rich in detail and well argued, these works, however, overemphasize the ‘crisis’ in the late medieval church. Responding to Imbart and Renaudet, Jean-Marie Le Gall has emphasized the important role the crown played in promoting these reforms. See his Les moines au temps des réformes: France (1480 –1560) (Seyssel: Champ Vallon, 2001), in particular ch. 2.

new regime and church reform, –

105

rekindled spiritual fires would spread through the rest of the church orders and in turn enflame the people to greater piety. This Observant movement only had partial success during the last decade of the fifteenth century. Starting with the Benedictines and proceeding to the mendicant orders, the reformers attempted to return regular clerics to a life of prayer, devotion, and renunciation of worldly things, a regime many of them had openly abandoned for a quasi-secular, often debauched existence. Stubborn resistance from the Conventual houses retarded the reformers’ progress. Despite some well-meaning synods in the 1490s and Standonck’s program for improving clerical education at the University of Paris, the reform of the secular clergy made even less headway. After 1501, reform became a royal cause. The new king, Louis XII, asked the pope to grant his chief minister, Cardinal Georges d’Amboise, the right as papal legate to visit convents and correct abuses in religious houses throughout the realm. By 1510, Amboise had managed to force the reform, at least nominally, of most female religious houses across the kingdom.61 However, he had no immediate successor as legate and no institution or royal office had been put in place to carry forward the reform. Indeed, the resistance provoked by Cardinal d’Amboise’s heavy-handed program broke the movement’s impetus after his death. For the rest of his reign, Louis XII contented himself with the piecemeal reform of individual convents. As in most other matters of state, Francis I followed the religious policy of his predecessor.62 Francis I continued to support the Observant movement, signing orders for the reform of Bénisson-Dieu, Yerres, and Jarcy in 1515; Saint-Père-en-Val, Alemenèches, Saint-Calais, the convents of the order de Sainte-Croix à Paris, and Fontevrault in 1516; the Carmelites of Toulouse in 1518; and Saint-Germain in Auxerre in 1519. There is some evidence that Francis also sought to revive the d’Amboise model for a centralized reform of the religious orders. In 1516, Leo X gave the cardinal of Luxemburg the right to visit monasteries in France as papal legate. The next year, the abbeys in the Norman 61 See Imbart, Origines 2, 507–513 for details on Cardinal d’Amboise’s extensive ten year campaign (1501–1510) to reform the religious houses of France. 62 For his assessment and the following examples, see Imbart, Origines 2, 514. Apart from Francis’s Concordat with the pope and attitude towards heresy, his early religious policy is not assessed as such (whether it existed explicitly or implicitly) in Knecht’s biography. Terrasse merely mentions that the Concordat of Bologna included articles directed at removing abuses among the clergy and monks.

106

chapter three – the valois trinity takes power

dioceses of Rouen, Sées, and Bayeux were visited. In that same year Francis’s confessor, Guillaume Petit, authorized the bishop of Meaux, Guillaume Briçonnet, to inspect the abbeys in that diocese. In 1518, the new legate, Cardinal Boisy, was granted papal powers to continue the reforms. Marguerite seconded her brother’s reform efforts, using her status as a member of the royal family and her executive power as duchess in Alençon and Berry. Remarkably, the majority of her fifteen known letters prior to June 1521 are concerned with reforming religious houses. On many occasions, her letter was but one in a volley of missives sent by the royal family and its councillors, the collective impact of which was meant to demonstrate the court’s unity and strong desire for monastic reform. In the first of these letters, dated 23 August 1515, Marguerite requested that the Parlement of Paris support the reformed Dominicans in Le Mans against the Conventuals.63 This act placed her squarely behind the royal support for the Observant movement. Since late in the reign of Louis XII, the royal court had been supporting the Observant Dominicans, a wing of the Dutch congregation, against the French Conventuals, who were backed by the Parlement of Paris. From Rome, Cardinal Cajetan and the pope threw their weight behind the Observants.64 Meanwhile, the parlement protected the Conventuals in keeping with their traditional defense of Gallican liberties. Shortly before he died, Louis had eased Gallican opposition by convincing Leo X to detach the reformed Dominican houses in France from their Dutch superiors and to reorganize them into an autonomous French congregation. Louis then proceeded to hand over non-reformed Conventual houses to the Observants. Marguerite also collaborated in the royal reform program directed at Benedictine houses. On 14 January 1516, Marguerite joined with Queen Claude and Louise of Savoy in asking the Parlement of Paris to aid the reform of the convent of Yerres.65 This Benedictine convent was one of the latest scheduled for reform on the model of Fontevrault, 63 23 August 1515, Amboise, “Lettre de Marguerite d’Angoulême demandant au Parlement de protéger les religieux Dominicains réformés du Mans contre les religieux non réformés qui cherchent à empêcher la réforme.” AN X1A 9322, n. 75. Clémencet, Parlement, no. 982, 170 (appendix A, no. 10003). 64 See Renaudet, Préréforme, 574–75. 65 For the text of Marguerite’s letter, see Renaudet, Préréforme, 586–587, and 17 and 567 for context ( Jourda, Répertoire, no. 1).

new regime and church reform, –

107

which Cardinal d’Amboise had first purified in 1501. Like the cardinal before them, the royal family seemed particularly concerned to reform the houses near Paris as an example to the rest of kingdom.66 Yerres was one of the last near the capital to be forcibly restored to order. In 1518, Marguerite promoted the reform of the Benedictine sisters of Alemenèches in Alençon, a program Francis I had initiated in 1516.67 In December 1519, Leo X granted Marguerite permission to found a convent at Essai.68 In September 1521, Marguerite added her voice to those of her mother and brother to support the reform of the Benedictine sisters of Saint-Andoche and Saint-Jean in Autun.69 Her lively interest in monastic reform would be one of her abiding concerns.

Leading Characteristics of Marguerite’s Religion Marguerite’s few surviving letters before 1521 reveal little about her early spiritual development. When recommending reforms she does not expose her reasons. Rather, her missives are administrative documents in which reform is presented as a self-evident good. The nature of Marguerite’s engagement with matters of faith, piety, devotion, and good works is largely hidden. Evidence about the leading characteristics of her religious milieu, however, allows us to amplify clues in her letters. Marguerite grew up in a family that had a strong preference for Franciscan spirituality. Louise of Savoy had named her son after François de Paule (Francesco da Paola), who was the latest incarnation of the

66

Imbart, Origines 2, 510–514. Jourda, Marguerite, 52. 68 The convent was to be of the order of St. Augustine. Jourda does not indicate where this “Essai” may have been. See Jourda, Répertoire, no. 4. It was apparently in the Alençons’ Norman territories; see “Confirmation de la fondation faite à Essai par le duc d’Alençon et Marguerite d’Angoulême, sa femme, d’un couvent de pénitentes de l’ordre de Saint-Augustin. Poitiers, janvier 1519 [1520 n.s.],” Gallia Christiana in provincias ecclesiasticas distributa, 16 vols., ed. Denis de Sainte-Marthe (Paris: J. Coignard, 1715–1865), vol. 11, col. 174; CAF 5 no. 17220, 494. In another instance of supporting monastic reform, Marguerite thanked the seigneur de Lafayette on 22 September [1520] for the favorable reception of six monks sent by Francis I to a monastery at Ardres (Département Pas-de-Calais). There is no indication of the monks’ origin, order, or purpose in being sent, but one assumes that they were sent to reform the foundation. This transfer fits the typical pattern of injecting Observant monks into a ‘corrupt’ community to direct its renewal. See Jourda, Répertoire, no. 8. 69 Unpublished text, BnF F.fr. 2971, fol. 4 (Saulnier 1977, 24.1 [Jourda, Répertoire, no. 23]). 67

108

chapter three – the valois trinity takes power

spirit of Francis of Assisi and founder of the Minimes, mendicants who aspired to be ‘less’ than the ‘lesser brethren,’ the Friars Minor. François de Paule had been called to France from Italy by Louis XI, and, enjoying royal patronage, had remained after the king’s death. Responding to Louise’s request for spiritual aid in her desire for a son, François de Paule promised not just that she would bear a son but also that he would someday become king.70 This was a daring prophecy, since the house of Angoulême was at that time two uncertain steps from the throne. His prediction came true, and the mendicant seer received his reward posthumously. Louise of Savoy recorded in her Journal that, on “5 July 1519, Brother François de Paule of the evangelical mendicant brothers [Minimes] was canonized by me; in any case, I paid the fee [for his canonization at Rome].”71 Louise also chose a Franciscan as tutor for her children, François Du Moulin de Rochefort, the same who lauded the ruling family as the “Royal Trinity.” When Marguerite married into the Alençon family, she witnessed the piety of her mother-in-law, Marguerite de Lorraine. Late in life the senior duchess of Alençon took orders in a Franciscan house, Sainte-Claire in Argentan, leaving her wealth to be administered by her daughter-in-law.72 A further mark of the royal family’s predilection for Franciscan spirituality was their patronage of Boniface de Ceva. He was the provincial minister of the reformed Conventual (Observant sub ministris) Franciscans, who were fighting with two other Franciscan branches: the more rigorous Observants (de familia or de bulla or sub vicariis), whose latest champion was the fiery preacher Olivier Maillard, and the ‘lax’ Conventuals who, though they had mitigated the original vow of poverty, descended in a direct line from Francis of Assisi.73 The ObservantConventual conflict dated back to debates among the first followers of Francis, who could not agree about the extent of the founder’s strictures on the necessity for absolute poverty in his testament. The decisive split 70

Knecht, Renaissance Warrior, 3; Terrasse, François Ier 1, 1. “L’an 1519, le 5 juillet, frère François de Paule, des frères mendians évangélistes, fut par moi canonisé; à tout le moins j’en ai payé la taxe.” Louise de Savoie, Journal, 91. 72 Jourda, Marguerite, 61; idem, Répertoire, no. 9. 73 James K. Farge gives a clear presentation of the three families of Franciscans in Orthodoxy, 118–120. Renaudet calls the reformed Conventuals, ‘Conventuals’ yet recognizes that they were reformed and competed with the Observants for the restoration of (confusingly) other ‘Conventual’ houses throughout France. For the basis of the following summary see his lengthy account of their conflict in Préréforme, 163, 194, 332–333, 556–558, 570–571, 590, 690–692. 71

new regime and church reform, –

109

in the order, however, had come in the fourteenth century. The French court, the pope, and de Ceva himself had been anxious to end the division in France by unifying all the reformed houses under the very same de Ceva. During the legateship of Cardinal d’Amboise, the exile of Olivier Maillard from Paris, along with papal bulls and pressure from court, had worked to this end. Yet the Observants continued to seek an uncompromising reform. Meanwhile, de Ceva and the reformed Conventuals enjoyed the support of the royal court during their legal wrangling with the Observants. Signaling their strong support, Louise of Savoy and Marguerite invited de Ceva to preach Advent at court in Amboise during the first year of Francis’s reign.74 Thus Marguerite and the rest of the ruling family supported both the moderate Franciscan and Dominican reformed parties. A second characteristic of the royal family’s religious life was its active participation in a panoply of traditional devotions. Louise had bought relics for her children, presumably to encourage their participation in the cult of the saints.75 She recorded in her Journal the royal family’s pilgrimages, participation in religious processions, celebration of feast days, financial aid in the canonization of François de Paule, as well as founding of “un service solennel” for her deceased husband Charles.76 We may infer that this included obit masses for his soul. For her part, Marguerite actively participated in such devotions with a serious if not uncritical appreciation for them. In a letter to her recently cloistered mother-in-law, Marguerite de Lorraine, she detailed how she would spend the 14,000 l.t. rent left to her in trust. She promised to use the first 7,000 for her mother-in-law’s needs and the endowment of the convent as instructed. This included 2,000 l.t. for maintaining the property, 3,000 l.t. for the endowment, and 2,000 l.t. for Marguerite de Lorraine’s “board and other necessities.” Though the dowager duchess of Alençon had avowed personal poverty, neither she nor her spiritual sisters would be in danger of penury. With the remaining 7,000 at her

74 De Ceva died the following year (1516), and his Advent sermons, Sermones prenatalicii, sive de adventu, were then published in 1518. See Fichier Picot, “Marguerite d’Angoulême,” (44) 5/10 and 6/10, no. 558. For the royal family’s support for moderate mendicant reform, notably Boniface de Ceva, see Renaudet, Préréforme, 570–574. 75 Jourda, Marguerite, 24. 76 Louise of Savoy mentions in her Journal pilgrimages or other religious observances on 12 September 1515, 13 December 1515, 8 and 28 May 1516, and 24 November 1517, as well as a memorial service for Charles on 9 March 1520.

110

chapter three – the valois trinity takes power

discretion, Marguerite volunteered to join in the duchess’s holy project in order to strengthen the convent’s endowment: As for the 7,000 livres that you left to me . . . with the remainder [after paying pensions to her mother-in-law’s former household servants] I promise in the name of the love that I have for you that I will pay for any purchases that you make for your foundations: both for the convent and for masses at Notre-Dame of Alençon as well as for completing the buildings. . . . Moreover, I will reserve 500 francs77 for supplying decorations, reliquaries, and other items that the community has requested. I will also make sure that, should death cut short your life’s journey, and so long as our Lord gives me life, your convent, its endowments and buildings will be well established, as I understand to be your holy intention, with at least 700 livres rent yearly, and the whole [convent] built, furnished, and fully fitted out. The [amount remaining] at my disposal will be used both to repair poor churches as well as for alms in the region.78

Beyond the contractual terms governing the first half of the grant, Marguerite felt a moral obligation to her mother-in-law to spend the remaining funds on good works. One of these was to make sure the convent’s endowment was on firm enough footing to survive when their rich benefactor passed away. Furthermore, Marguerite promised to use these sums to pay for the works of devotion, such as masses, that Marguerite de Lorraine and her sisters commanded. Even so, some money would be left over. Marguerite earmarked it for rebuilding churches and giving alms in the region. One might be tempted to see in this last decision, which was Marguerite’s personal preference in the realm of fiscal piety, some divergence from her mother-in-law’s choice of good works. There might seem to be a contrast between rebuilding poor churches and endowing a convent richly, or between giving alms in the region and furnishing those

77

A gold coin worth one livre tournois. “Quant est des sept mille qu’il vous plaît me laisser, . . . je vous promets sur l’amour que je vous porte, que je l’enchargerai d’en payer les acquisitions que vous ferez pour vos fondations tant du couvent et des messes de Nôtre-Dame d’Alençon, que pour achever les bâtiments; de sorte que le trésorier emploiera tous les deniers; de quoi, une fois l’an me rendra compte. Mais je retiendrai cinq cents francs pour faire ornements, reliquaires et choses que la communauté nous avait demandées; m’obligeant que, si vous veniez par mort à abréger le voyage de votre vie, tant que notre Seigneur me donnera de vie, je ferai parfaire votredit couvent, rente et édifice, selon que je connais votre saint dessein; et à tout le moins de 700 livres de rente, et le tout accompli, bâti, meublé. Ce que je jouirai sera pour employer tant en réparations de pauvres églises, que d’aumônes au pays.” Eugène Laurent, Histoire de Marguerite de Lorraine (Argentan, 1854), 257–258 ( Jourda, Répertoire, no. 9). 78

new regime and church reform, –

111

cloistered sisters with the sumptuous trappings of a rich cult. No firm conclusions, however, can be drawn from Marguerite’s stated intentions. Who were the poor, the deserving needy, to whom she would be giving? She does not say. What donations, if made for pious reasons, did ‘giving alms’ not include? In the preceding centuries, the endemic strife over the meaning of ‘evangelical poverty’—notably among the Franciscans—had stretched the terms ‘rich’ and ‘poor’ on the racks of spiritual allegory, uncoupling them from their nominal referents to the social and physical realities of opulence and privation. From the wealthy Benedictine abbeys to the destitute beggars in city streets, the world was filled with ‘poor’ people of wildly differing means, all potentially deserving of alms depending on the giver’s point of view. People of that era recognized Christ’s earthly proxies in prosperous monks and hungry vagabonds alike. Thus the Poor Claires of Argentan would have magnificent sums to support their life of worldly renunciation, prayer, and good works. As for Marguerite’s intentions, without further evidence from this early period we can not tell if she had already begun the munificent campaign to succor students, prisoners, orphans, widows, and refugees in which she engaged after her tutelage in the spiritual school of Guillaume Briçonnet, Lefèvre d’Étaples, and the other Fabrists at Meaux.79 Marguerite exhibited another characteristic of her early religious development when she teased Guillaume de Montmorency about his failure to visit her mother-in-law in her new holy state: I showed your letter [in which he excuses his absence due to ill health] to Miss Marguerite de Lorraine, who has not forgotten in putting on her gray habit memories of times gone by. I assure you that she prays to God for you so much, that if all the women who have given you [their all] would all have done as much, you would not have to lament a bit about your past, since they would have prayed you into heaven, where, after a long and happy life, I desire to see you. Your good cousin and friend, Marguerite80

79 Saulnier discusses at length Marguerite’s alms giving in relation to Briçonnet’s advice 5 February 1522 that she should pay “plus d’aulmosnes, moins d’aulmosniers,” see Saulnier 1977, nos 54–1, referring to Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 28, 138–153; 145. 80 “J’ay monstré vostre lettre à la damoyselle Marguerite de Lorraine, qui n’a laissé pour son gris habit à avoir souvenance du temps passé, et vos asseure qu’elle s’acquitte sy bien à prier Dieu pour vous, que sy toutes les dames quy vous ont donné la tous en faisoyent aultant, vous ne deveriés point avoir regret au temps passé, car leur oraisons

112

chapter three – the valois trinity takes power

“Miss Marguerite” was an older, noble widow who had taken the veil, but she needed only a little reminder of a past dalliance or, at least, of a dandy whom she had known, to spur her to fervent prayer for his and her own salvation. Reflecting on Marguerite’s Heptaméron, Lucien Febvre rightly observed that early sixteenth-century people were capable of intermingling sacred and profane love without hypocrisy in ways that may seem incongruous to modern interpreters.81 Clearly, Marguerite had a deep sense at an early date of the ironic conjunctures possible between earthly and heavenly love, yet she did not ridicule them. Her teasing of Guillaume de Montmorency touched on two sensitive points. First, Marguerite flattered him with the idea that Marguerite de Lorraine could not forget him even in her new holy state, highlighting thereby the difficulty of training the spirit to the monastic life. The Observant movement had arisen, after all, precisely because many monastic houses had become warrens of those who had failed such spiritual tests. Second, Marguerite evoked a disputed gray area of medieval soteriology when she suggested playfully that if all Guillaume’s former female friends or lovers (amies) would pray for him as was Marguerite de Lorraine—especially if they had taken the veil—then he would not have to be contrite himself or personally pay the debt of sin in order to gain heaven: “you would not have to lament a bit about your past, since they would have prayed you into heaven.” In effect, those religious women would fulfill for Guillaume the two parts of sacramental penance required beyond oral confession, namely, heartfelt contrition and penance (performing good works or devotions to remit the debt of sin). Marguerite leaves hanging the idea that this notion is as problematic as her mother-inlaw’s inability to detach her mind from past intimacies. Despite her teasing, Marguerite’s letter to Guillaume de Montmorency of 1520 points to a serious piety she shared with her mother, which went hand in hand with trenchant critiques of clergy and cult. Though by no means systematic, their critical questioning can be seen in the way

vous metteroient en paradis, où après longue et bonne vie, désire, vous voir, Vostre bonne cousine et amye, Marguerite,” [1520?], Génin 1, no. 4, 151 ( Jourda, Répertoire, no. 11). The underlined passage seems grammatically defective since la does not agree with tous (it may be là, an adverb of time, meaning de temps). In any case, as Génin and Jourda both recognize, the sense is clear; the qui are the women who have in some measure given in to Montmorency’s charms. Génin refers the reader to the fifty-seventh story of Marguerite’s Heptaméron for a discussion of his “humeur galante.” 81 Lucien Febvre, Amour sacré, amour profane: autour de l’Heptaméron (Paris: Gallimard, 1944).

new regime and church reform, –

113

they play with religious norms, metaphorically usurp religious terms, and attack specific clerics. For example, in 1522 Louise inveighed in her Journal against the hypocrisy of monks and mendicants as well as the uselessness of mumbled (murmuratives) prayers. Upon the death of her protégé, Cardinal Antoine Bohier, she criticized the popes because their “crazy ambition” had led, in her colorful phrase, to a “hashing up of abbeys.”82 In other words, she did not appreciate papal interference in the court’s distribution of benefices. For her part, Marguerite exhibited a fondness for turning the normal sense of religious terms on their head. In 1519, in another letter to Guillaume de Montmorency, she played with the meaning of the Lenten fast, reporting that she was recovering from an illness so well that “it will no be great penance (pénitence) for me to observe Lent.”83 In a season when abstinence from fortifying foods is supposed to reinforce a deeper sense of repentance, even fulfill the penance imposed in confession, Marguerite recognized the irony that her improved bodily health, which she and Montmorency regard as a good in itself, would undermine her spiritual well being, since the Lenten fast would not cause her as much physical suffering. Again, in closing this letter, Marguerite plays with the normal sense of religious terms, saying that Louise of Savoy, Queen Claude, and herself, whom she styles the “poor hermits of Saint-Germain” (Saint-Germain-en-Laye, where they were staying), would pray for him if he wished. As in the appropriation of ‘trinity’ as a metaphor for the royal family, there is something highly incongruous, perhaps even disrespectful to religious solitaries, in calling three princesses lodged in a château “poor hermits.” Nevertheless, in claiming to be able to emulate the spiritual work of recluses through prayer, she also exhibits a certain desire to participate in such religious life. These few passing remarks in her letters offer but a glimpse of Marguerite’s religious attitudes on the eve of her collaboration with the Meaux group. The barometer reading we can glean from them points in an unsettled direction. Like her mother, Marguerite had a strong, often ironic, appreciation for the striking differences between religious ideals and practice. Their jokes, indignation, and expressions of piety are small,

82

“Lors fut faict une fricassée d’abbayes, selon la folle ambition de plusieurs papes.” Louise, Journal, entry for November 1518. 83 “. . . ma santé . . . se porte sy bien, que sy pis ne vient, ce ne me sera pas grant pénitence de passer ce caresme,” Génin 1, no. 6, 152 ( Jourda, Répertoire, no. 3).

114

chapter three – the valois trinity takes power

prosaic versions of the satire, measured critique, and spiritual ideals voiced by reformers and humanists during the late Middle Ages. Summarizing our findings about Marguerite’s powers and religious characteristics in the years immediately following her brother’s advent to the throne, we note first that, as a member of the Royal Trinity, she was fully integrated into the royal regime, working in tandem with Francis and his chief servants to effect major projects of state. Although we know of no independent network attached to her at this time with a particular agenda which differed from the king’s, the extensive development of her household had established the basis for one. Moreover, she evidently had some influence on Francis’s policy decisions since ambassadors sought her favor. Ambassadors’ reports and Louise of Savoy’s Journal also show that her influence was inferior to that of her mother. Second, our evidence shows that Marguerite used her powers to support the royal cause in the two great religious conflicts of the late 1510s: the struggle over the Concordat and the battle between Conventuals and Observants. Third, she aided royal reform initiatives that concentrated on the religious orders. King and court wanted to promote devout monks and nuns who would serve as holy examples. We note that, despite their augmented powers under the Concordat, the royal family had little interest in reforming the regular clergy. Finally, Marguerite’s humorous playing with religious themes in several of her early letters hints at her serious and critical engagement with religious matters. All these observations, however, hardly prepare us for her ensuing deep preoccupation with reforming the church, evangelizing the people, studying the Scriptures, and managing her brother’s religious policy. All this became apparent to contemporaries, as it does for us in the sources, during her extensive engagement with the Meaux group.

CHAPTER FOUR

THE FABRIST BACKGROUND TO THE NAVARRIAN NETWORK

An attentive observer in 1520 might well have expected that a new reform movement would soon develop in France but could not have predicted its eventual orientation, role, or fate. One could have pointed to several trends to substantiate such an expectation: a strong current of Christian humanism enjoying royal support, the impressive and growing enthusiasm for Luther’s ideas in learned circles, as well as the serious concern of some churchmen for monastic and clerical reform. Marguerite and the Fabrists coalesced at Meaux (1521) out of the confluence of these reformist trends, forming the center of a new French evangelical movement. At a very early date this group and the wider network that grew up around them had a remarkably strong conviction that a new age was at hand and a sense that they were called to bring it into being. First, we need to establish when they came to the conclusion that a new era was dawning, for this realization was a core feature of their self-identity and provided the basis for their collaboration. Second, we need to examine whether their perception of the changing times and of their new roles in them masks substantial continuities with their previous vocations. Since the turn of the century Lefèvre d’Étaples and his disciples had been leading the vanguard of Christian humanist studies and supporting varieties of late medieval reform. In order to understand their development as leaders of the evangelical movement at Meaux and beyond, we must review their long scholarly career at Paris during which their study of Christian letters led them into religious controversies and prepared the way for this evolution in their thought and careers.

“Ante illustrationem Evangelii:” Evangelical Self-awareness Writing from Meaux to Guillaume Farel at Basel in 1524, Gérard Roussel evoked their long-standing friendship, which stretched back before the gospel light had begun to shine (ante illustrationem Evangelii ). Their

116

chapter four

friendship had started nearly twenty years earlier in the circle of Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples at the College of Cardinal Lemoine.1 Most recently, they had been working together in Bishop Guillaume Briçonnet’s reform of Meaux until Farel’s departure in 1523. In a startling comment on their academic careers, Roussel, an accomplished humanist, remarks that while they had been brought together “through I do not know what regrettable studies,” now he hoped “[their friendship] would grow fuller and become more constant in that light of the gospel, which is daily shining forth.”2 In short, Roussel was declaring that the basis of their allegiance had shifted from their pursuit of humanist letters to a new commitment to spreading the gospel. By 1524, this common cause linked not only Farel and Roussel, but also evangelicals throughout France as well as several other Frenchmen abroad who, like Farel himself, were collaborating with reformers at Wittenberg, Zurich, Basel, and Strasbourg. When did French evangelicals begin to believe that the gospel light had begun to shine anew? Asking this question, we set aside, for the moment, the inquiry into the origins and nature of their movement, and seek simply to date when it dawned on them that the times had changed. The evidence points to sometime around 1520. In his 1512 Commentary on Paul’s Epistles, Lefèvre had predicted that the “signs of the times announce that renewal is near,” citing as evidence the conquests of the Portuguese and Spanish which were opening new avenues for preaching the gospel.3 He hoped that God would soon visit the church in

1 Farel probably arrived at Paris in 1509, and had among his teachers Lefèvre and Roussel. See Herminjard 1, 178–180; CE 2, 11–13. 2 “Ut aliquando finiam, in aliis alioqui occupatior quam ut commentari tecum longius possim, abs te obnixe postulo, ut amor qui inter nos ante illustrationem Evangelii contractus est per nescio quae studia penitenda, in ipsa Evangelii luce indies se promente, amplius accrescat ac major assidue fiat,” 6 July 1524, Herminjard 1, no. 104, 231–240, 239–240. 3 “L’Église suit malheureusement l’exemple de ceux qui la gouvernent, et elle est bien loin de ce qu’elle devrait être. Cependant les signes du temps annoncent qu’un renouvellement est prochain, et, pendant que Dieu ouvre de nouvelles voies à la prédication de l’Évangile par les découvertes et les conquêtes des Portugais et des Espagnols dans toutes les parties du monde, il faut espérer qu’il visitera aussi son Église et qu’il la relèvera de l’abaissement dans lequel elle est tombée,” Herminjard 1, no. 1, 5 n. 2, quotes this passage in translation from Lefèvre’s Commentary on Paul’s Epistles without a page reference and directs the reader to Charles-Henri Graf, Essai sur la vie et les écrits de Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples (Strasbourg, 1842; repr. Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1970), also without page reference. In this work, p. 73, Graf refers to Lefèvre’s hope for the coming renewal of the church based on the New World discoveries, citing, without

the fabrist background to the navarrian network

117

Europe and restore it. Between 1518 and 1520, as Lefèvre’s critique of the cult of Mary Magdalene and St. Anne (the mother of the Virgin Mary) and, more especially, the Luther affair stirred the European intellectual community, Lefèvre’s associates began to believe that this renewal had commenced. By 1524, Lefèvre was fully convinced that the gospel light had dawned. Writing to Guillaume Farel about the great consolation he received from the works of Johannes Oecolampadius, Konrad Pellikan, Huldreich Hugwald, and other German reformers, he exclaimed: Oh Good God, how greatly I rejoice when I see that the gracious gift of truly knowing Christ has now spread through a large part of Europe! I hope that Christ will finally visit our France with this blessing. May Christ grant these prayers and the Conqueror favor these beginnings everywhere!4

In a letter to Pellikan of February 1556, Farel recalled specifically that the spread of the Reformation movement during the early 1520s convinced his French colleagues that the gospel would soon be victorious. He relates that previously, during the 1510s, when contemplating the church’s ills, Lefèvre had predicted, “Guillaume, the world must be transformed and you will witness it.” Subsequently, when they were together at Strasbourg in 1525–1526, Farel had proclaimed to his old master that the gospel light was dawning: the time of renewal had come. Lefèvre agreed and urged Farel to continue preaching the gospel.5 We can infer that, like Roussel, Farel, and Lefèvre, Marguerite also believed that a new era had begun at the time Luther’s doctrines appeared on the French scene. On 16 January 1527, Noël Beda reported to the Faculty of Theology that

further specification, Lefèvre’s commentary on 2 Cor. 9:5 ff. and Rom. 11:25 ff. as well as Ps. 125 (126) in Lefèvre’s Quincuplex psalterium. 4 “Quam consolationem Spiritus ex literis tuis, Œcolampadii, Pelycani, Hugaldi, et ex Germanicis libris concepi dicere haudquaquam possim, quia plane redolent Christianismum. O bone Deus, quanto exulto gaudio, cum percipio hanc pure agnoscendi Christum gratiam jam bonam partem pervasisse Europae! Et spero Christum tandem nostras Gallias hac benedictione invisurum. Vota audiat Christus, et cœptis ubique victor adspiret!” 24 July 1524, Herminjard 1, no. 103, 219–228, 220. 5 “. . . Pius senex, Jacobus Faber, quem tu novisit, ante annos plus minus quadraginta me manu apprehensum ita alloquebatur: ‘Guilelme, oportet orbem immutari, et tu videbis,’ dicebat. . . . Tandem aliquid lucis coepit intueri; et quanta caligo adhuc restabat. Demum coactus Galliam deserere, Argentoratum descendit, ubi virum commonefeci eorum quae olim praedixerat, et jam tempus instare dicebam, quod et pius senex fatebatur, meque hortabatur, pergerem in annuntiatione sacri Evangelii,” Farel to Pellikan, 16 February 1556, quoted in Herminjard 1, p. 481, addition to p. 5, n. 2, citing “Joh. Henric. Hottingerus, Historia ecclesiastica Novi Testamenti (Zurich, 1665), pars V, 18.” See Quadroni, Farel corr., no. 875, 83 for the location of the original manuscript letter.

118

chapter four

Marguerite had specifically asked for a copy of all their decisions on matters of faith since the beginning of the Lutheran conflict, “ab inicio Lutherane factionis.”6 The French evangelicals’ perception that a new era had commenced with the advent of the Luther affair was mirrored in the substantial changes that occurred in their soon-to-be chief enemy, the Sorbonne. The Faculty of Theology at Paris was transformed, under the leadership of Noël Beda, into a formidable watchdog against heresy—largely in response to Luther, Lefèvre, and his colleagues.7 From 1505 to 1520, the Paris Faculty of Theology met, on average, twenty-one times per year (with little fluctuation) to deal with administrative matters, the examination of students, and the conferral of degrees. Only occasionally did they pronounce upon major doctrinal cases, such as the quarrels between Observant and Conventual Franciscan orders (1514), the Reuchlin affair (1514), Cardinal Cajetan’s book on papal primacy (1516), and abuses in preaching indulgences (1518). In 1520 Beda revived and was elected to the position of syndic (the officer who controlled the agenda of the faculty’s meetings) expressly to manage the Sorbonne’s evaluation of Luther.8 In 1523, the faculty met 104 times, five times more often than usual, largely to prosecute heresy charges against Luther, Martial Mazurier, Lefèvre d’Étaples, Josse Clichtove, Michel d’Arande, Aimé Meigret, Louis de Berquin, Pierre Caroli, Erasmus, and Melanchthon.9

6

Farge, Registres 1, 165, 188 B: “Deinde recitavit predictus honorandus syndicus Beda aulicum quemdam dixisse illi sese in mandatis habuisse ab illustrissima domina vidua defuncti domini ducis Alenconii, que soror est domini nostri regis, ut transcribi curaret omnes determinationes facultatis in causis fidei factas ab inicio Lutherane factionis, quoniam illas videre cupiebat ipsa domina. . . .” 7 Imbart de la Tour argued that a highly motivated minority group of intransigents took over the faculty by manipulating its procedures, eventually forcing the rest of the regents to side with them in an all or nothing campaign against heresy; see Origines 3, 213 ff. James K. Farge sees a less radical transformation in the period 1521–1526, arguing that a vast majority within the faculty (and parlement as well) were conservatives united in the fight against heresy. However, as he recognizes, many of the era’s prominent ‘heretics,’ from Pierre Caroli and Martial Mazurier in 1523 to Anne Du Bourg in 1559, had sat on the benches of these venerable institutions before being purged. See Orthodoxy, 37–38, 125–132, and esp., 160–180. Both agree, however, that the faculty substantially changed in its function. 8 Farge, Orthodoxy, 127. 9 Seventy of their meetings occurred between June and October, during a sustained campaign against Berquin, Lefèvre, Luther, and others. See chapter 7. After Beda’s election as syndic, the faculty met more and more often, escalating from 32 sessions in 1521 and 38 in 1522. The faculty’s unprecedented 104 meetings in 1523 were also better attended than ever before. On 13 July 1523, the largest number of doctors—80 per juramentum, double the average attendance of 40 out of some 120 doctors—appeared

the fabrist background to the navarrian network

119

So too the careers of evangelicals changed direction during this period. In 1520, Lefèvre withdrew from Paris because of the oppressive scrutiny occasioned by the Mary Magdalene controversy, but set no clear course for his future.10 Then, the next year, in a significant departure from their previous scholarly activity, he and many collaborators joined Guillaume Briçonnet’s reform efforts. Breaking out of the confines of the University of Paris and the cloistered walls of Saint-Germain-desPrés, they turned for the first time to address the laity directly and, in support of lay instruction, redirected their biblical scholarship from Latin, producing their first vernacular religious works. At this very time, Lefèvre’s most important scholarly collaborator, the theologian Josse Clichtove, forsook the Fabrist circle and rallied to the ranks of the Paris theologians who were marshalling to combat the new heretics. Marguerite too only becomes a significant evangelical figure after 1520, when she began to patronize the cause.11 To understand how the Navarrian Network originated, we need to look back to its antecedents, ante illustrationem Evangelii, when circles of Christian humanists and reforming bishops, from whose ranks the evangelical network would draw together, were attempting different sorts of renewal.

The Fabrists’ Career Lefèvre and his disciples pursued their wide range of intellectual interests as part of a coherent program. In his commentary on Aristotle’s Politics (1506), Lefèvre articulated an ideal educational curriculum, which helps us to understand his career as a teacher, commentator, and editor of to hear “Lizet, expound on the dangers of Lutheranism.” The lowest recorded turnout for a meeting from 1500–1536 was 17, during the investigation of Erasmus’s books in 1527, a period when conservatives were under the wrathful eye of Francis I. See Farge, Orthodoxy, 37–39, 160 and 169. Clerval’s edition of the Registres is followed here for the number of sessions. Farge counts for 1521, 31; 1522, 41; and 1523, 101. 10 On Lefèvre’s withdrawal from the public in 1519–1520, when he was being attacked during the Mary Magdalene controversy and associated with Luther, see Guy Bedouelle, Lefèvre d’Étaples et l’intelligence des Écritures, THR 152 (Geneva: Droz, 1976), 90 ff. and below. 11 Marguerite was, admittedly, an important political figure before 1520, but her close involvement with religious affairs thereafter augmented her importance. Her evangelical views, actions, and potential influence on her brother’s response to the movement became the central themes of her life, as is born out in the abundant primary source material from after 1520, including her own religious writings.

120

chapter four

texts. He describes a pyramid of studies that builds up from the seven liberal arts, through Aristotle’s philosophy, especially his metaphysics, to the Scriptures. For each subject he names the most important works that should form the core of an ideal syllabus. Emphasizing the need to study these texts in their entirety—rather than in the heavily glossed excerpts of most medieval textbooks—he nevertheless recommended a select group of commentators, both ancient and modern, as invaluable guides. For the apex of this program, the libri sacri, he advocated reading the church fathers as aids to understanding Scripture. He lauded Nicolas of Cusa and Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite as guides to higher levels of contemplation, but left unmentioned the medieval theologians.12 Lefèvre’s plan of study fit comfortably within the broad humanist program for the renewal of learning, particularly in his choice texts for the liberal arts.13 Surveying the publications of Lefèvre and his disciples chronologically, we see that they divide into three phases corresponding roughly both to this hierarchy of study as well as to the three stages of Lefèvre’s career.14 In a first period, from 1490 to 1508, while Lefèvre was a teacher at the College of Cardinal Lemoine, the majority of the Fabrists’ publications related to the Aristotelian base of this pyramid. With his two prolific collaborators, Josse Clichtove and Charles de Bovelles, who had both articulated similar plans of study to his own, along with other disciples—Gérard Roussel, Antoine Roussel, and François Vatable,

12 On the levels above the liberal arts in his model curriculum, Lefèvre writes, “Sed qui volet haec ad finem deducere superiorem feliciusque otium, preparetur in libris Aristotelis qui transmundanorum et metaphysicorum sunt, quique de prima supramundanaque philosophia nuncupantur. Hinc libri sacri sunt cum veneratione tractentur. Quibus assent comites Cyprianus, Hilarius, Origenes, Hieronymus, Augustinus, Athanasius, Nanzenanus, Damascenus et similes. In his autem mente purgata et sensibus exercitatis, actione vitae consentanea et morum honestate calcatis vitiis. Si mens generosior elevatiores contemplationes affectet, paulatim ex libris Cusae surgat et divini Dionysii; et si qui sunt similes, hanc procul dubio liberalem et ingenuam putaverim esse institutionem,” Politicorum libri octo. Commentarij (Paris: Henri Estienne, 1506), fols. 123v–124r, quoted by Bedouelle, Lefèvre, 51. 13 Bedouelle, Lefèvre, 53–56. 14 John Woolman Brush argues that Lefèvre’s three intellectual phases were chronologically Aristotelian, mystical, and biblical. His main concern is to show how, in comparison to Luther and Calvin, Lefèvre’s mystical ideas were pervasive and “seal[ed] him off by himself.” He is not concerned with Lefèvre’s practical activities or impact as teacher, scholar, or reformer, which were hardly solitary or idiosyncratic. See “Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples: Three Phases of his Life and Work” in Reformation Studies: Essays in Honor of Roland Bainton, ed. F. H. Little (Richmond: John Knox Press, 1962), 117–128, 124.

the fabrist background to the navarrian network

121

among others—Lefèvre provided purified texts and clear philologically oriented commentaries or summaries on the major texts used to teach each area of the liberal arts.15 Lefèvre began a second phase in 1508 when, having retired from active teaching, he took up residence with several followers in the abbey of Saint-Germain-des-Prés in Paris, over which his former pupil and patron, Guillaume Briçonnet, had just become abbot (1507).16 In this second phase, while continuing to publish on the Aristotelian corpus, the Fabrists turned their attention more and more to the Bible, the church fathers, early church historians, and mystics. During this period, Lefèvre wrote only three new works relating to Aristotle or the liberal arts, though many of the twenty-eight he had previously authored continued to be republished.17 While he had already edited seven mystical or patristic texts, including ones by Hermes Trismegistus, Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, Ignatius and Polycarp, Ramón Lull, Clement, and John of Damascus,18 it was at Saint-Germain-des-Prés that he took his first steps, indeed, landmark first steps by any northern humanist, in textual criticism of the Bible. He produced a Fivefold Psalter (Quincuplex Psalterium, 1509, 2nd ed. 1513) and a Commentary on Paul’s Epistles (Commentarii in Pauli epistolas 1512, 2nd edition 1515).19 Both commentaries contained the Vulgate text—in the case of the Psalms the old Latin version plus Jerome’s three different translations—in parallel columns

15 Rice’s collection of Prefatory Epistles by Lefèvre, his disciples, and admirers offers abundant evidence about their collective effort. The membership of the extensive Fabrist circle could be established by systematically culling these prefaces and Rice’s detailed notes. The Fabrists’ works provided ample teaching and scholarly material for each of these domains of study. For Lefèvre, Clichtove, and Bovelle’s extensive publications, see the bibliographies found in Rice, Prefatory Epistles, 535–568, Renaudet, Préréforme, LI–LVII, and Farge, Biographical Register, 94–104. 16 Veissière, Guillaume Briçonnet, 75–84. 17 Statistics compiled from Rice, Prefatory Epistles, “Bibliography,” 535–568. 18 See Rice, Prefatory Epistles, “Bibliography,” nos. XXXIX–XLII, 539; CLV–CLXVII, 549–551; CLXVIII–CLXXIV, 551; CLXXV–CLXXVII, 551–552; CXCIII, 553; CXCV, 553; CCVII–CCXII, 554–555. 19 For the Psalms translation and commentary, see Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples, Quincuplex Psalterium, Facsimilé de l’édition de 1513, ed. Guy-Thomas Bedouelle (Geneva: Droz, 1979) and Guy Bedouelle, Le Quincuplex Psalterium de Lefèvre d’Étaples: Un guide de lecture (Geneva: Droz, 1979). No modern editions exist for Lefèvre’s commentary on Paul, Contenta. Epistola ad Rhomanos. Epistolas prima ad Corinthios (Paris: Henri Estienne, 1512) and Contenta. Epistola ad Rhomanos . . . In hac secunda emissione obiter relegendo commentarios (Paris: Henri Estienne, 1515). See Rice, Prefatory Epistles, “Bibliography,” nos. CCXLV and CCXLVI, 558–559.

122

chapter four

with a Latin text revised by Lefèvre according to his understanding of the original Hebrew and Greek. Lefèvre also provided summaries and commentaries for each psalm or chapter. These were his only two biblical works in this period. In the final stage of his career, after moving to Meaux, Lefèvre worked on nothing but biblical texts. His last new works on philosophy, the mystics, and the church fathers appeared between 1518 and 1520.20 Thereafter, with the help of his disciples, he published Latin commentaries on the Gospels (1522) and the Catholic Epistles (written 1524, published 1527), translated the Bible into French in installments from 1523 to 1530, composed a preaching handbook, the Epistres et Evangiles pour les cinquante et deux dimenches de l’an (1525), and wrote several short works on the Psalms. His extremely popular vernacular religious works, which only date from the Meaux period, ushered in the age of evangelical and Protestant religious literature in French intended chiefly for the laity.

From “Barbarian Captivity” to the “Babylonian Captivity”: The Restoration of Learning In 1503 Lefèvre d’Étaples explained that he had corrected the medieval vulgate Latin text of Aristotle’s works on logic “[so] that no one can now be in doubt (I think) about the meaning, except perhaps a reader still miserably languishing in barbarian captivity.”21 Having made common cause with Erasmus and other humanists antibarbari in combating scholastic obscurantism, Lefèvre would later find himself, according to his young Swiss friend Henricus Glareanus, like many other scholars

20

Rice, Prefatory Epistles, xxii. However, it should be noted that in 1527 Erasmus forewarned Lefèvre that he had already completed work on a Latin translation of John Chrysostom’s commentaries on Acts, having heard that he and Gérard Roussel had been asked to do the same at the request of Francis I. See Allen 6, no. 1795, 479. 21 Eugene F. Rice, Jr.’s translation of “Stilum ita temperavi, ut nullus de intelligentia (si non me mea fallit opinio) aut queri aut diffidere debeat, nisi forte qui in barbarorum castra deictus adhuc misera sub captivitate languet infirmus,” from Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples, ed., Libri logicorum ad archetypos recogniti (Paris: Wolfgang Hopyl and Henri Estienne, 17 October 1503), a1v, in “Humanist Aristotelianism in France,” in Humanism in France at the End of the Middle Ages and in the Early Renaissance, ed. A. H. T. Levi (Oxford: Manchester University Press; New York: Barnes & Noble, 1970), 133 and 145, n. 6.

the fabrist background to the navarrian network

123

at Paris, in sympathy with the author of the Babylonian Captivity.22 Glareanus reported in 1521 that Lefèvre had left Paris: for no other reason than that he can not bear hearing the abuse against Luther. Nor are Faber [ Lefèvre d’Étaples] and Erasmus spared by that theologian ‘Oak-leaves.’23

Glareanus’s explanation of why Lefèvre and his colleagues moved to Meaux may not be the full story, yet it certainly points to the significant appreciation Lefèvre had for Luther and the difficulty he faced as both their works were being condemned by Paris theologians in 1521.24 Indeed, it is reasonable to surmise that Lefèvre read with approval the De captivitate Babylonica ecclesiae praeludium, at which the Faculty of Theology’s April 1521 censure of Luther chiefly aimed.25 These two

22 “Ego sane Lutheri pene nulla habeo opera, exepta unica ‘Captivitate Babylonica,’ quae mihi tam impense placuit, ut illam ab initio ad finem usque ter magna admiratione legerim, ubi, deum testor, discernere nequeo, an eruditio illa summa animi istam libertatem, an ea ‘parresia’ [in Greek characters] iudicium vincat: ita ex aequo mihi certare videntur. . . . Faber Stapulensis ab urbe longe abest ad XX lapidem, neque ullam ob causam, quam quod convitia in Lutherum audire non potest, tametsi Quercinus ille theologus neque a Fabro neque ab Erasmo etiam temperat.” Glareanus to Ulrich Zwingli, from Paris, 4 July 1521, Herminjard 1, no. 38, 69–71 (excerpt), 70–71 for quotation; ZW 7, no. 183, 460–462. Bedouelle fails to note or comment on this purported reason for Lefèvre’s retreat to Meaux, though he quotes this letter from “Quercinus . . .” forward, see his Lefèvre, 93. Cf. Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, Lefèvre: Pioneer of Ecclesiastical Renewal in France (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1984), 130. 23 Quercinus, “Oak-leaves,” is the adjectival form of Quercus, Guillaume Duchesne’s last name in Latin. By renaming him this way, Glareanus may be ironically heroizing Duchesne. The Romans gave garlands of oak-leaves to soldiers who had saved the life of a citizen in battle. Glareanus may be referring to Duchesne’s ‘heroic’ public service in the condemnation of Luther. Duchesne, along with Noël Beda, was one of the principal doctors involved in the investigations against Reuchlin, Jacques Merlin, Lefèvre d’Étaples, Berquin, and Luther. See James K. Farge’s article in CE 1, 410. 24 The faculty condemned Luther’s doctrines on 24 April 1521, and condemned Lefèvre’s views on Mary Magdalene, which Josse Clichtove and Martial Mazurier had also upheld, on 9 November 1521 after two years of attacks on his views by conservative theologians from across Europe. See Clerval, Registres, 284–288, 299–301. 25 One may not doubt that Lefèvre would have had knowledge of Luther’s works. On 9 April 1519, Lefèvre sent greetings from Paris via Beatus Rhenanus at Basel to “learned men of sound doctrine” there, including Michael Humelberg, Wolfgang Capito, Sapidus (Johann Witz) “et caeteros omnes, quos in Christi dilectione diligo, etiam Lutherum, si aliquando tibi occurret,” Herminjard 1, no. 20, 45; Beatus Rhenanus, Briefswechsel des Beatus Rhenanus, ed. Adalbert Horawitz and Karl Hartfelder (Leipzig: B. O. Teubner, 1886), no. 105, 152. After 1519, Luther’s works were widely available and read in Paris. Aside from the Latin editions imported from Germany, circa 1521 ten reprints of Luther’s works were published at Paris, including an edition of De captivitate Babylonica. See Moreau 3, nos. 170, 170 bis, 170 ter, 171, 171 bis, 171 ter, 172, 172 bis, 172 ter, and 173. If not

124

chapter four

captivities mark the poles of the development we want to trace: from the Fabrists’ engagement with the humanist project of restoring letters, including biblical texts, to their involvement in the Meaux reform as the Luther affair was breaking. Prior to Meaux, what was the educational reform program of the Fabrists? What aspects of their scholarly pursuits in Paris either differed from or prepared the way for their efforts at Meaux? These questions touch on an old debate about the origins and specificity of the Reformation in France, which Lucien Febvre so famously decried and so eloquently recast.26 The crux of that controversy was whether Lefèvre and his disciples contributed an autonomous French spark to the ensuing Reformation conflict by anticipating the major reformers’ ideas.27 The present state of scholarship would lead us to agree with Febvre that Lefèvre’s pre-Meaux works contain “a succession of ideas, whose development is not always easy to trace.”28 Moreover, we can agree that the premise of the debate—that merely Lefèvre’s from these sources, Lefèvre would have had access to De captivitate Babylonica from Glareanus, who was in close relations with Lefèvre since 1517 (Glareanus to Zwingli, 29 August 1517, ZW 7, no. 26, 59–61) and displayed in his letters an intimate knowledge of Lefèvre’s writing project on the saints as well as movements during 1519: Glareanus to Zwingli, 13 January 1519, Herminjard 1, no. 19, 41–42 (excerpt), ZW 7, no. 55, 126–129; Glareanus to Zwingli, 15 May 1519, ZW 7, no. 76, 168–170; Glareanus to Zwingli, 7 July 1519, ZW 7, no. 81, 179–180. Moreover, Glareanus’s letter to Oswald Myconius 7 April 1521, would seem to corroborate that Lefèvre, whom he considered to be one of the most learned men at Paris, held Luther in high esteem: “De Luthero quid scribam, nihil habeo. Unum hoc scio doctissimos quosque et optimos de doctrina et viro sentire optime. Caeterum modum fortassis duriorem cepisse putant; verum id irritatoribus asscribunt.” Zurich, Staatsarchiv, E. II. 336, 13, cited in ZW 7, no. 160, 362 n. 9. Lefèvre’s appreciation for Luther is all the more remarkable since Luther had attacked Lefèvre’s beloved Saint-Denis (Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite) in De captivitate Babylonica. See Farge, Orthodoxy, 125–129, 166–167. Lefèvre’s erstwhile collaborator, Josse Clichtove, would defend the legend of that Saint-Denis—which conflated into one person Paul’s disciple Dionysius the Areopagite, Pseudo-Dionysius, and Denis, the martyred first bishop of Paris—against attacks made by Valla, Erasmus, and Luther in his Antilutherus (Paris: Simon de Colines, 13 October 1524). See Jean-Pierre Massaut, Critique et tradition à la veille de la Réforme en France; étude suivie de textes inédits traduits et annotés (Paris: Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin, 1974), 179–187. In October 1523, Briçonnet would condemn Luther for attacking the authority and legend of Saint Denis, see chapter 7. 26 “Une question mal posée: Les origines de la Réforme française et le problème des cause de la Réforme,” Revue historique, 141 (1929); reprinted in Lucien Febvre, Au cœur religieux du XVIe siècle, 2nd ed. (Paris: Le Livre de Poche, 1983 [1957]), 7–95; particularly 7–35. 27 Febvre specifically denounced any nationalist motivations that might inspire this thesis. 28 Febvre, Au cœur religieux, 34–35.

the fabrist background to the navarrian network

125

or, for that matter, any thinker’s ideas could account for the ensuing Reformation conflict—is misguided because it neglects the social and, as Febvre would have it, the psychological context in which such ideas played themselves out. Scholarship on Lefèvre’s multifaceted career has yet to elucidate the full scope of his thought as expressed in his numerous publications on philosophical, mystical, and biblical texts.29 It is readily apparent, nevertheless, that, prior to Meaux, Lucien Febvre’s “ambiguous Lefèvre” did not offer the galvanizing doctrine, trenchant critique, clear vision of the church’s ills, or remedy for them capable of igniting conflict. In short, though Lefèvre was gravely concerned about the ills of the church, unlike Erasmus or Luther, he did not denounce them publicly. What matters here is to draw out those elements of his and his colleagues’ careers and thought that prepared the way for their participation in and the explosive impact of the Meaux reform.

29

The best introduction to Lefèvre’s life and work is Guy Bedouelle, Lefèvre d’Étaples et l’intelligence des Écritures, THR 152 (Geneva: Droz, 1976). Bedouelle concentrates on Lefèvre’s approach to interpreting the Scriptures, discussing several of Lefèvre’s doctrinal positions as examples of his method. The total scope of Lefèvre’s doctrine, however unsystematically articulated in his biblical commentaries as well as his editions of the church fathers and of medieval mystics, needs further clarification. The late Philip Edgcumbe Hughes’s study of Lefèvre includes the most extensive extant survey of Lefèvre’s positions on justification by faith, faith and merit, grace, the Eucharist, and like soteriological subjects. He has consulted all of Lefèvre’s biblical commentaries and quotes them copiously in translation, though without the original Latin in the notes. It should be used with caution, however, for although he, an Episcopalian, concurs with Bedouelle, a Catholic, in eschewing any attempt, motivated by confessional allegiance, to claim Lefèvre as a “crypto-Protestant” or “Catholic with a bad conscience,” his short theological summaries are necessarily incomplete, and at times distorted by his Protestant preoccupations. See, for example, Hughes’s assessment of Lefèvre’s Eucharistic thought, Lefèvre: Pioneer of Ecclesiastical Renewal in France (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1984), 87–92. Charles-Henri Graf offers a useful, though slimmer and less systematic inquest into Lefèvre’s thought using these same sources in his Essai sur la vie et les écrits de Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples cited above. Henry Heller’s studies have many perceptive discussions on the development of Lefèvre’s thought during the Meaux years. See his “The Evangelicism of Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples, 1525,” Studies in the Renaissance 19 (1972), 42–77; and “Nicholas of Cusa and early French Evangelicism,” ARG 63 (1972) 6–21, esp. 13–16. The most recent work on Lefèvre can be found in Jacques Lefèvre d’Étapes (1450?– 1536): Actes du colloque d’Étapes les 7 et 8 novembre 1992, Colloques, congrès et conférences sur la Renaissance 5 (Paris: Honoré Champion, 1995). Essential studies on Lefèvre’s thought prior to Meaux include Imbart, Origines 2 and 3; Renaudet, Préréforme, passim; and Jean-Pierre Massaut, Critique et tradition.

126

chapter four Before Meaux: A Season of Growth and Strife

During the crucial period between 1508 and 1520, Lefèvre and his colleagues greatly expanded the scope and impact of their studies. Three dimensions are worth noting: first, their increasing preoccupation with religious texts; second, their engagement with monastic and clerical renewal; and, third, how the controversies sparked by their new studies fit within the growing European struggle between biblical humanists and scholastic theologians. Biblical Studies Having attained notoriety across Europe for their work in philosophy, the Fabrists gained further renown as they refocused their studies on the apex of the educational hierarchy, the libri sacri: the Bible and religious texts. Ironically, their retirement to Saint-Germain-des-Prés and heavy concentration on mystical texts, that realm of higher and happier reflection, has the semblance of a disengagement from the world. In 1491 Lefèvre had indeed been tempted to become a monk after reading Ramón Lull’s Contemplation, but renounced this project, as he explained in 1505, contenting himself with publishing works “that incline minds towards piety.”30 After 1508, when the Fabrists turned from Aristotle and philosophy to concentrate on editing mystical and patristic texts, they were not retreating from the world into mystical contemplation in the cloister. Rather, as Lefèvre had outlined in his hierarchy of study, they edited such works in order to open up the meaning of the Bible and, above all, to inculcate true devotion. In light of later developments at Meaux, however, it is notable, that at Meaux Lefèvre and his colleagues never translated such texts for the unlettered.31

30 Lefèvre explains that, having been detained in the world by illness and other preoccupations, “Quapropter ad priores artes revolutus ad emerendas sanctorum virorum preces, cum id in solitudine non possim, libenter emissioni librorum (qui ad pietatem formant animos) operam do,” preface to Primum columen contemplationum Raemundi (Paris: Guy Marchant for Jean Petit, 1505); Rice, Prefatory Epistles, no. 45, pp. 140–145, 142. See further Bedouelle, Lefèvre, 17–23; Hughes, Lefèvre, 11–13, 47–51. 31 Bishop Briçonnet’s works are a notable exception. Not only did he fill his letters to Marguerite with long mystical expositions, he also translated part three, “de vera patientia,” of the Contemplationes Idiotae for Marguerite’s use by December 1521. See Rice, Prefatory Epistles, no. 127, 413; Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 20, 102.

the fabrist background to the navarrian network

127

In his prefaces to the Fivefold Psalter and Commentary on Paul’s Epistles, Lefèvre articulated several principles that would subsequently underpin the Fabrists’ decision to give the laity direct access to the Bible. Asserting that to understand the Scriptures rightly one has to read them for the meaning intended by the Holy Spirit, Lefèvre posited a twofold literal sense of Scripture. The true Beyond the philological ‘literal’ sense was the spiritual meaning that the Holy Spirit intended to impart through the words of Scripture. Any other reading deviating from the intended message, be it a ‘literalistic’ or metaphorical one, was deadly. This was his stance in the age-worn debate over the correct grounding point for scriptural exegesis, especially in interpreting the Bible’s many figurative passages.32 Most immediately, Lefèvre was reacting to what he saw as the regrettable fact that people read Scripture without spiritual profit, notably monks whose lives of devotion revolved around reciting the Psalms. How does one gain true understanding of Scripture—that is, the Holy Spirit’s intended meaning—and thereby acquire its spiritual riches? Lefèvre offers three complementary answers to this question. First, in the preface to the Psalms commentary, he stresses that Christ is the central subject of the Scriptures. Thus, David’s songs are not historical documents about his own trials and faith, but prophetic utterances about Christ.33 He reiterates this view in his preface to the Paul’s 32 On the place of Lefèvre’s twofold literal sense in the history of biblical exegesis, notably the traditional four modes of interpreting Scripture, see Heiko A. Oberman, Forerunners of the Reformation: The Shape of Late Medieval Thought Illustrated by Key Documents (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981 [1966]), 281–296 with a translation of Lefèvre’s prefatory epistles to these two works, 297–301; Bedouelle, Lefèvre, 181–185; and Hughes, 55–60. 33 “I have tried to write a short exposition of the Psalms with the assistance of Christ, Who is the key to the understanding of David and about Whom David spoke, commissioned by the Holy Spirit, in the book of the Psalms.” Lefèvre explains through five examples that “the Anointed One of the Lord” in the Psalms refers to Christ, not David. He concludes, “it is impossible for us to believe this one to be the literal sense which they call the literal sense, that which makes David a historian rather than a prophet. Instead, let us call that the literal sense which is in accord with the Spirit and is pointed out by the Spirit. . . . Therefore, the literal sense and the spiritual sense coincide. This true sense is not what is called the allegorical or tropological (moral) sense, but rather the sense the Holy Spirit intends as He speaks through the prophet.” Oberman, Forerunners, 299–300. Lefèvre expressed this idea powerfully in his dedicatory epistle to Psalterium David, argumentis fronti cuiuslibet psalmi adiectis, Hebraica & Chaldaica multis in locis tralatione illustratum (Paris: Simon de Colines, 1524): “Christus dominus est totius scripturae spiritus. Et scriptura sine Christo scriptura sola est et littera quae occidit; Christus vero spiritus vivificans. . . . Qui (attestante Paulo ad Corinthios) factus est nobis sapientia et iustitia et sanctificatio et redemptio.” Rice, Prefatory Epistles, 476.

128

chapter four

Epistles: true understanding begins only by believing Paul’s assertion that it was not himself speaking, but the Spirit of Christ through him.34 Correspondingly, scholars see Lefèvre’s religious thought as Christocentric. For him, just as Christ is the guiding focus for understanding Scripture, so too the whole goal of the Christian’s pilgrimage to God is a quest for the union or indwelling of the believer in Christ and Christ in the believer (Christiformitas).35 Second, Lefèvre posits that the meaning of the Holy Spirit has been elucidated by divinely inspired expositors such as the church fathers. He claims his commentaries are succinct expositions of the church fathers’ more elaborate treatments.36 Ultimately, however, Lefèvre stresses that, even with such aids, “sterile” and “cursed” human minds are not able to gain true insight; rather, only those who understand these Epistles and the comments thereupon to be gifts of God shall profit from them. They owe such profit not to themselves but to grace.37

Lefèvre assures his readers that if they approach the Scriptures devoutly, God will grant them understanding and a pious heart.38 Scholars have seen similarities to later Protestant doctrines in these principles and in his specific commentaries on key passages in Paul’s Epistles. Indeed, Lefèvre’s understanding of the literal sense of Scripture influenced Luther.39 Their common interpretive method led them

34 “Qui intelligent has epistolas esse Dei donum et quod adiectum esse Dei donum proficient. Et ii non ex se sed ex gratia proficient. At vero qui mundanum forte attendent artifice, immo qui Paulum ipsum qui iam supra mundum est, quasi hae epistolae sint eius opus et non superioris energiae in eo divinitus operatae, suo sensu ad lecturam accedentes, parum fructus inde sunt suscepturi; et inflati sensu carnis suae, multa extorte iudicantes, circa inania vanescent et tantundem mente aegrotabunt. . . . Assit Christus divinorum auctor munerum, omnibus gratiam donans, datamque conservans et augens conservatam, ut nullus suo sensu iudicet praesumatque iudicans. Nam Paulus solum instrumentum est. Experimentum (inquit) quaeritis in me loquentis Christi [2 Cor. 13:3]. Haec enim doctrina Christi est, non cuiusvis alterius.” Rice, Prefatory Epistles, 297. 35 Bedouelle and Hughes both highlight that the quest for Christiformitas is the defining characteristic of Lefèvre’s religious thought. See Bedouelle, Lefèvre, 227–230; Hughes, Lefèvre, 192–197. 36 Preface to the Quincuplex Psalterium, Oberman, Forerunners, 301. 37 Translation of Latin text cited in note 34 above from Oberman, Forerunners, 304. 38 “To those, therefore, who approach this reading piously, not Paul nor anyone else but Christ and His exceedingly good Spirit will be present so that the readers might grow in piety,” Oberman, Forerunners, 304. 39 For a clear overview and interpretation of Lefèvre’s ‘influence’ on Luther, see Oberman, Forerunners, 288–294. For a brief comparison of Lefèvre and Luther with reference to the thought of Nicolas of Lyra, Jean Gerson, early sixteenth-century con-

the fabrist background to the navarrian network

129

to similar doctrines, yet there were also significant differences. In his exegesis of Paul’s letters, Lefèvre emphasized God’s free gift of grace and downplayed external works. For this reason, Luther recognized that, although Erasmus had a firmer philological grasp on the Greek New Testament, he preferred Lefèvre’s doctrinal insights. Yet Lefèvre, in Luther’s view, had not fully fathomed the doctrine of justification.40 It is certainly true that Lefèvre did not fully prefigure Luther’s understanding of sola fides when interpreting Paul in 1512/1515. Nor did Lefèvre’s views induce him to offer trenchant criticisms of the church’s teachings about faith and works. Nevertheless, Lefèvre’s exegetical method did undercut the authority of the church and its approach to establishing the meaning of Scripture, correct doctrine, and true practice. Lefèvre would not have agreed with the assertion made by the early sixteenthcentury papal apologist, Sylvester Prierias, that Whoever does not rely on the teaching of the Roman Church and the Roman Pontiff as the infallible rule of faith, from which also Holy Scripture draws its power and authority, is a heretic.41

Characteristically, Lefèvre did not care to debate this point publicly.42 Rather, he preferred to concentrate on what was for him the essence of the matter: increasing piety. Convinced that understanding and devotion were gifts of the Holy Spirit, Lefèvre at Meaux would come to see every reason to give the laity immediate access to the Giver and His gifts through the Scriptures in the vernacular.

servative Catholic exegetes, and Erasmus, see John C. Olin, The Catholic Reformation: Savonarola to Ignatius Loyola, Reform in the Church 1495–1540 (New York: Harper & Row, 1969), 107–110. For the homologies of Lefèvre’s thought with Luther, Calvin, and other Protestants, see Hughes, Lefèvre, 96–99. Their notes cite further literature. 40 After attacking Erasmus’s notion of justification, Luther claims that Lefèvre, who otherwise lives the doctrine, does not correctly articulate it when interpreting Scriptures: “Nam et Stapulensi, viro alioquin (bone Deus) quam spirituali et syncerissimo, haec intelligentia deest in interpretando divinas literas, quae tamen plenissime adest in propria vita agendo et aliena exhortando.” Luther to Spalatin, from Wittenberg, 19 October 1516, WA Br 1, no. 27, 70, ll. 37–41. 41 Oberman, Forerunners, 292. 42 Bedouelle points out that Lefèvre is said to have argued that the church was “the mother of faith and mistress of the truth,” but rightly questions what “church” he meant. He notes that Lefèvre did not much emphasize the “institutional church,” its liturgy, or traditions when interpreting Scripture. For lack of a clear definition of the church by Lefèvre, Bedouelle prefers to suspend judgment, since Lefèvre himself chose to remain silent and especially so in the period after the condemnation of Luther. Bedouelle, Lefèvre, 120–135. We believe that he did give a clear indication of his position, despite its unacceptability to church authorities. See our conclusions to this section.

130

chapter four

Bolstering Monastic and Clerical Renewal The Fabrists were not principally addressing the laity during the years 1508–1520. Rather, their targeted those responsible for instructing lay people, the clergy. They dedicated a portion of their works to patrons who were attempting monastic and clerical reform. As Lefèvre explained in his preface to his Psalter, he wrote especially to ensure that monks would no longer become depressed by failing to understand the Psalms but would rather rejoice in exploring their spiritual riches.43 While Lefèvre was composing this work, his patron Guillaume Briçonnet was attempting to reform the abbey of Saint-Germain-des-Prés. Briçonnet was but one of several prelates, heirs of the spirit of Jean Gerson (1363–1429), Nicolas of Cusa (1401–1464), Jan Standonck (1443–1503), and Jean Raulin (1443–1515), who were seeking to reform both regular and secular clergy during the early sixteenth century.44 Lefèvre and his collaborator edited several works that were particularly suited to nourishing monastic devotion. These were:45 Richard of St. Victor, De trinitate (1510) Jean Mombaer, Rosetum exercitiorum spiritualium et sacrarum mediationum (1510) St. Aldhelm, De virginitate carmen (1512) Jean Ruysbroeck, Ioannis Rusberi de ornatu spiritualium nuptiarum (1512) The Liber trium virorum et trium spiritualium virginum (1513) Nicolas of Cusa, Opera (1514) Josse Clichtove’s commentary on the Corpus Dionysiacum (1515) Ramón Lull, Proverbia and Arbor philosophiae amoris (1516) The anonymous Contemplationes Idiotae (1519)

43 Lefèvre dedicated his 1509 Quincuplex psalterium to Cardinal Guillaume Briçonnet, whose son, Guillaume Briçonnet, bishop of Lodève, had just taken over from him as abbot of Saint-Germain-des-Prés. Rice, Prefatory Epistles, no. 66, 192–201. Lefèvre had similarly dedicated his 1505 edition of Lull’s Contemplation to several novitiate monks; see Rice, Prefatory Epistles, no. 45, 140–145. 44 For a brief overview of episcopal reform during the sixteenth century, particularly with reference to Gerson, Claude de Seyssel, Gasparo Contarini, and Guillaume Briçonnet, see Paul Broutin, L’Évêque dans la tradition pastorale du XVIe siècle: adaptation française de “Das Bischofsideal der katholischen Reformation” par Hubert Jedin (Bruges: Desclée De Brouwer & Cie, 1953). This is a French translation with additional material of Hubert Jedin, “Das Bischofsideal der katholischen Reformation,” in Sacramentum ordinis: Festschrift zum 60. Priesterjublileum des Kard. Bertram (Breslau: E. Prisik and K. Kriss, 1942)], 11–20, 26–43, and 78–84. See further chapter 6. 45 Rice, Prefatory Epistles, epistles nos. 74, 75, 90, 91, 99, 109, 111, 118, 126, and 127.

the fabrist background to the navarrian network

131

Les contemplations faictes a l’honneur et luenge de la tressacree vierge Marie [a translation of the second part of the Contemplationes Idiotae] (1519)

Early church mystics (Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite and the Shepherd of Hermas in the Liber trium) were thus brought to light along with the great figures of the medieval traditions (Richard of St. Victor, Ruysbroeck, Cusa, and Lull) as well as other well-known visionaries (the anonymous author of the Visio Wetini, Robert of Uzès, Hildegard of Bingen, Elizabeth of Schönau, and Mechthild of Hackeborn, all in the Liber trium) and the less well known, anonymous Contemplationes Idiotae. The publication of the Rosetum by Jean Mombaer (d. 1502), the sole contemporary author in this group, helped to popularize the rosary in France. Mombaer had been an important figure in the circle of reformers active at the turn of the century, having led the delegation of Windesheim canons called to France in 1496 by Jean Standonck. After serving in several religious communities around Paris, he continued the reform of the important abbey of Livry after Nicholas of Hacqueville’s death in 1501.46 Thus, publishing Mombaer’s work was a tangible link to the previous generation of reformers, typified by Standonck and Raulin, who similarly had been inspired by the mystical authors whom the Fabrists were editing between 1508 and 1520.47 Without wanting to draw a sharp distinction between works suited to the religious as opposed to the secular clergy, we note that the following editions were particularly oriented to clerics:48 Berno, De officio missae (1510) Jacopo Sannazaro, Carmen de passione dominica (1513) Marco Dandolo, Preconium crucis (1514) Claude de Seyssel, Moralis explicatio Evangelii Lucae (1514) Josse Clichtove, Elucidatorium ecclesiasticum (1516)

46 For the first missions of the Windesheim canons 1496–1497 and Mombaer’s subsequent work, see Renaudet, Préréforme, 217–229 and 302–303, 312, 330, and 341. 47 Renaudet relates that the Observant movement had been halted by a succession of blows, including the death of the reformist primate of France, Georges d’Amboise (1510), as well as the French court and church’s conflict with the Rome at the Council of Pisa (1511) and Lateran V (1512); Préréforme, 524–590, esp. 556–63. 48 Rice, Prefatory Epistles, nos. 77, 98, 108, 107, 114, 121, and 123. Prior to 1508, only one of Lefèvre’s publications would have been particularly useful for the secular clergy: the Liber clericorum (1499) by Ramón Lull was “an elementary catechism for ignorant clerics dedicated to the ‘venerable University of Paris, and principally to its Chancellor [Gerson], Rector, dean and other chief members.’ ” Ibid., no. 22, 75.

132

chapter four Hugh [Richard] de St. Victor, Allegoriae in Vetus et Novum Testamentum (1517) Jean Gerson, L’instruction des curez pour instruire le simple peuple (1518)

This list omits the Fabrists’ many contributions to patristics and church history,49 but does give a sense of their commitment to clerical renewal. They addressed their works—both those suited to monastic as well as to clerical reform—to several of the most influential churchmen in France, some of whom were themselves authors in the wider Fabrist circle, including Cardinal Guillaume Briçonnet, his sons Guillaume and Denis Briçonnet, their cousin Michel Briçonnet, Louis Pinelle, Guillaume Petit, Claude de Seyssel, Jacques d’Amboise, Louis Guillard, and François Du Moulin de Rochefort. The prefaces of these works announced a desire to reform cloister, clergy, and cult. Lauding Berno’s treatise on the Mass, Lefèvre recommended it to all priests so that they would properly understand the office,50 noting that Berno instructed officiants how to celebrate the rite in its pristine, apostolic form.51 In his preface, Lefèvre glossed the principal Greek and Latin words used in the office specifically so that the priest would know their meaning when reciting them. Clichtove authored his Elucidatorium ecclesiasticum in an associated effort to instruct clerics about the meaning of liturgy.52 Similarly, Bishop Denis Briçonnet of Saint-Malo edited Gerson’s Opus tripartitum in Latin and French expressly for uneducated clerics.53 Gerson’s pastoral handbook had already been used in twenty-two diocese by the time of his death in 1429 and many prelates besides Denis Briçonnet were reviving its use in the early sixteenth century for the reform of their clergy.

49 See Rice, Prefatory Epistles, nos. 79, 85, 87, 92, 93, 97, 104, 105, 106, 128, and 130 for patristic works and nos. 73, 81, 100, and 131 for editions relating to church history. 50 “. . . librum commisi officinae, quo multis, maxime sacerdotibus, prosit. Nam is mihi sane visus est, qui dignus sit in manibus omnium sacerdotum versari, ne negligenter et inscie sanctum opus aggrediantur; cum etiam scriptum esse non nesciant, maledictum eum esse qui negligenter opus domini facit.” Rice, Prefatory Epistles, 234–235. 51 “Ad quod quidem rite assequendum, . . . occurrit mihi quidam libellus venerabilis viri Bernonis quondam abbatis Augiensis, circa divinorum priscas et apostolicas institutiones pervestigandas olim vigilantissimi, qui non parum utilis et accommodus huic rei mihi visus est.” Rice, Prefatory Epistles, 234. 52 Rice, Prefatory Epistles, 358–359. 53 Rice, Prefatory Epistles, 395. See Moreau 2, nos. 1096 & 1831; Moreau 3, nos. 113 & 1213; and Moreau 4, no. 168, three of which can be added to the five early sixteenthcentury editions tallied by Rice.

the fabrist background to the navarrian network

133

Controversy It is hard to assess what spiritual profit from the Fabrists’ Latin works, addressed to learned audiences, may have “trickled down” to the laity. In one famous instance, and indeed the first known instance in which Lefèvre was explicitly called upon to respond to the needs of the laity, the application of his principles to popular religion resulted in a raging controversy: the Mary Magdalene debate. This was to be an important step towards the next phase of the Fabrists’ career. In 1518, François Du Moulin de Rochefort asked Lefèvre for a study of one the royal family’s favorite saints, Mary Magdalene.54 Rochefort had been commissioned to write her life by Louise of Savoy after the royal family had visited saint’s shrine at Sainte-Baume in the south of France in 1516, where, pious legend had it, she had migrated and died during the first century A.D.55 Like St. Denis, she was a popular ‘national’ saint whose deeds endowed the church in the Most Christian Realm with quasi-apostolic origins. Medieval hagiographers had long held, in a tradition dating back to Gregory the Great, that Mary Magdalene was one and the same as Mary, the sister of Martha, as well as the sinful woman mentioned in Luke 7:36–50. Lefèvre’s inquiry led him to debunk this association of the three women, since he found no grounds for it in Scripture and because the early Greek fathers had rejected it. Although Lefèvre did not offer definitive conclusions, by publishing his views he sparked a controversy that vented years of increasing acrimony between Europe’s humanist exegetes and conservative theologians.56 Major scholars from 54 There are the numerous studies of this controversy. For the exegetical and theological issues at stake, see Anselm Hufstadter, “Lefèvre d’Étaples and the Magdalene,” Studies in the Renaissance 16 (1969), 31–60 and Massaut, Critique et tradition, 67–96. Massaut rightly includes discussions of two attendant issues. Lefèvre appended to his work on Mary Magdalene a refutation of the legend that the Virgin Mary’s mother, Anne, had three successive husbands, and also brought forward a controversial explanation of the three days between Jesus’ crucifixion on Friday and resurrection on Sunday. 55 Marie Holban provides a clear account of how Louise of Savoy’s request via Du Moulin prompted Lefèvre to study Mary Magdalene. See Holban “François du Moulin de Rochefort et la querelle de la Madeleine,” Humanisme et Renaissance 2 (1935), 26–43, 147–171. 56 For the many tracts in the Magdalene controversy, see Hufstadter, “Lefèvre d’Étaples and the Magdalene.” Massaut warns against seeing the Magdalene debate simplistically, as a confrontation between humanists and scholastic theologians, pointing out that Erasmus had his reserves about Lefèvre’s position and that John Fisher, who was generally sympathetic to humanist studies, wrote twice and with much heat on the side of Beda and other conservatives—whereas John Mair, a scholastic theologian at Paris,

134

chapter four

across Europe entered into the debate, producing over sixteen tracts, including Marc de Grandval, Bishop John Fisher of Rochester, and Noël Beda, who contested Lefèvre’s theses, and Josse Clichtove, Willibald Pirckheimer, and Symphorien Champier, who defended them. Lefèvre had already sparred with the Paris Faculty of Theology in 1514 in support of Johannes Reuchlin, whose studies of Hebrew and Jewish mysticism had nourished his own biblical commentaries.57 Across Europe, the Reuchlin case had served as a forum where, in addition to exchanging insults, humanists and scholastic theologians debated whether the study of the biblical languages was helpful, even necessary, for theological studies. Lefèvre’s Magdalene treatise similarly drew the wider educated world into the fray over the use of the humanists’ critical methods in assessing the Bible and church tradition. As importantly, it implicated the French court as the patrons of such humanists. The Magdalene debate thus reverberated with the other disputes stemming from the works of Erasmus and Luther, which were ringing through Europe between 1518 and 1520. In a new preface to a reprint of Luther’s collected works (4th ed. 1520), the anonymous editor at Basel proclaimed that “the German Daniel” and Lefèvre were brothers-in-arms. He praises Luther as a new prophet sent by Christ to refute the abuses in the church caused by medieval theologians such as Nicolas of Lyra, Thomas Aquinas, and Duns Scotus, and singles out Lefèvre as the leader of those good men renewing biblical studies, whom, he laments, modern scholastic theologians were accusing of heresy.58

supported Lefèvre’s “three Marys” position. However, generally, lines of opposition were being clarified by such debates, if they were not already set. The humanist ranks would subsequently split over the Reformation along lines already becoming apparent during the Magdalene debate, with Fisher and Erasmus deciding contra. See Massaut, Critique et tradition, 67. 57 On the Reuchlin affair and Lefèvre’s involvement in its unfolding at Paris, see Renaudet, Préréforme, 640–655, esp. 650–655. 58 After proclaiming Luther’s prophetic role, the editor expresses the wish that theologians would awaken and mend their ways: “Atque utinam omneis Theologos a lethargo tandem expergefieri contingat . . . ut non facile de causa, aut etiam non causa, bonos viros cum ipsis ineptire nolentes haereticos pronunciare conentur, quosdam Parisiensi Scholae Theologos imitati, qui Jacobum Fabrum Stapulensem, eruditionis et integritatis columen, quod ineptam istam Novi Instrumenti versionem, adductis argumentis, esse Hieronymi negasset, haereseos damnare voluerunt, seipsos interim non citra academiae totius ignominiam, apud totum orbem, et omnem forsan posteritatem, imperitiae et invidiae atque malignitatis notantes! Sed cogitent Scholasticas opiniones nequaquam fieri debere Christianorum onera. Cogitent mundum, passim nunc emergentibus

the fabrist background to the navarrian network

135

The issues at stake in the Magdalene affair went far deeper than the mere modification of a popular saint’s legend. Conservatives saw Lefèvre’s tract as the thin end of a wedge that would open the door to disbelief. They warned that scholars would be tempted by Lefèvre’s example to reassess the cult of the saints and other practices accepted by the church, thereby undermining the laity’s trust in the church and destroying their faith.59 Lefèvre probably exacerbated such fears in the second edition of his Magdalene treatise. To it, he appended a discussion in which he denied the legend that St. Anne, the Virgin Mary’s mother, had had three successive husbands and a daughter named Mary by each one. The Virgin Mary, he affirmed, was the only daughter of Anne by her one and only husband.60 To accusations that he was fomenting dissent, Lefèvre responded that he did not intend to create religious turmoil. Nor was he embarking on a project to undermine the cult of the saints, to which he himself was particularly devoted. However, Lefèvre’s critical methods did again call into question the validity of scholastic exegesis and the role of tradition in establishing religious practice. Lefèvre himself may well have come to understand the full implications of his approach about this time, for, after this second salvo, he retired from the field of combat over the Magdalene and turned to a new, more ambitious project. During 1519, Lefèvre launched a major effort to purify the cult of the saints. He intended to publish a revised compendium of their lives based upon the best historical sources. A prime target were the spurious stories, “vel inepta vel suspecta,” that had grown up around their lives over

studiis, reipiscere, Laïcos non tam crassos quam fuerunt olim. Christum et Paulum in primis ament, spirent, complectantur, et comperient quaedam secus habentia quam quaestionistae hactenus docuerunt. Itaque, fratres, tempus est nos à somno surgere.” Herminjard 1, no. 31, 61–62. This was a new preface written for the fourth printing of Martin Luther, Prima pars operum reverendi patris, ac sacrae theologiae doctoris Martini Lutheri, Augustiniani Wittenbergensis ([Basel: Andreas Cratander], March, 1520 [1518]). Josef Benzing, Lutherbibliographie: Verzeichnis der gedruckten Schriften Martin Luthers bis zu dessen Tod (Baden-Baden: Heitz, 1966), no. 6, 3. Cf. Kurt Aland with Ernst Otto Reichert and Gerhard Jordan, Hilfsbuch zum Lutherstudium, 3rd rev. ed. (Witten: LutherVerlag, 1970), no. 638 for the first collected edition of Luther’s works (1518), including the Resolutiones disputationum de virtute indulgentia and other texts. 59 One of the first to respond to Lefèvre, John Fisher, bishop of Rochester, made these arguments, which were picked up by other adversaries. See Hufstadter, “Lefèvre d’Étaples and the Magdalene,” 43–50. 60 For Lefèvre’s effort to ‘re-equilibrate’ the number of biblical Marys (he found three ‘Marys’ in the one Magdalene but reduced St. Anne’s three daughters of that name to only one ‘Virgin’ Mary), see Massaut, Critique et tradition, 75–80; Graf, Essai, 85–90.

136

chapter four

the centuries and were repeated in works such as Jacobus de Voragine’s immensely popular The Golden Legend. In describing his contribution to this work in progress, Glareanus wrote to Zwingli: Upon the advice of Lefèvre d’Étaples and with the help of a few manuscripts, I have just written an account of Sts. Felix and Regula in simple prose so that those with a little Latin may understand it. I have taken care to put in the parts that most especially teach about Christ (maxime Christo conformia) and cut out those that are either silly or suspect. The cunning displayed by previous writers of this story is truly fabulous. Beyond the barbarous style by which they have completely obscured the matter, their idiocy is beyond measure.61

Glareanus does not specify what Lefèvre and collaborators like himself were excising from the medieval collections of the saints’ lives. One can well imagine, however, that they may have started with the more outrageous miracle accounts, like those in the Magdalene story, which relate how she had saved her devotees from prison, blindness, drowning, or dying un-shriven after a life of debauchery.62 The great irony here is that the Magdalene miracle stories were exactly what had caught the interest of Louise of Savoy, prompting her request for a new hagiography. Having accepted Lefèvre’s views, Du Moulin was forced to explain to Louise that such miracle accounts were the least reliable and important aspect of her cult.63 61 “Scripsi item his diebus consilio Fabri Stapulensis et codicibus aliquot adiutus divorum Felicis et Regulae historiam, humili stilo, ut a mediocriter doctis intelligi quiret. Caeterum cavi, ut maxime Christo conformia adiicerem, resecarem, quae vel inepta vel suspecta. Mirum vero ingenium eius historiae scriptoribus, quod praeter barbariem, qua negotium maxime obscurarunt, etiam supra modum ineptierunt.” 15 May 1519, from Paris, ZW 7, no. 76, 168–170; 169. Lefèvre’s modifications would have had significant impact on those who grounded their local pride on the miraculous deeds of their patron saints. When Glareanus first outlined Lefèvre’s project and announced his enthusiastic participation in January 1519, he advertised to Zwingli his desire to swell Zurich’s honor but failed to mention any desire to edify those somewhat learned, “mediocriter doctis.” Others could well have been dishonored by their revisions. “Caeterum scripseram domino praeposito Tigurino, aliisque canonicis . . ., Iacobum Fabrum sanctorum martyrum historias e non vulgatis authoribus et hominibus doctis collecturum. Quare, ut divorum martyrum apud Tiguinos historiam mitterent, oravi; ita enim futurum, ut collegio inde honor maximus oriretur.” 13 January 1519, from Paris, ZW 7, no. 55, 126–129; 128; cf. Herminjard 1, no. 19, 41–42 (excerpt). 62 Jacobus de Voragine, The Golden Legend: Readings on the Saints, trans. William Granger Ryan (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993) vol. 1, no. 96, 382–383. 63 Du Moulin reminded Louise of her request: “La Magdalene a faict tant de miraclez. Ne seroit il possible de les assembler et en faire ung livre?” He responded, “Je croy que non. Au moins qu’on en peust tirer foy certaine car en narration de miraclez y a tant de mansongez que c’est pitie. Et la plupart diceulx sont invisibles quant a nous et

the fabrist background to the navarrian network

137

Lefèvre abruptly abandoned his saints project after having enlisted the help of the talented minds around him and after publishing the lives of the martyrs whose feast days fell in January.64 Why did he stop? We have no testimony from Lefèvre. By mid-1519, the Magdalene controversy was becoming heated and he may well have sensed that his extensive reassessment of all the saints would create further turmoil. Lefèvre’s devoted disciple, Farel, recounted long afterwards that, more than fear of controversy, Lefèvre’s ‘critical wedge’ had finally separated him from the traditional cult of the saints. Farel recalled that, even when Lefèvre was still wholly devoted to the saints, he had started down the path towards repudiating the traditional cult because he realized that some people venerated them, Mary in particular, more than Christ and the cross.65 Farel claimed that Lefèvre took the next step later, while writing his martyrology in 1519. Having come to believe that the saints’ legends promoted idolatry by inspiring people to pray to them as intercessors instead of Christ, he abandoned his work.66 Ultimately, Lefèvre and n’an [sic = n’en] pouvons avoir congnoissance.” However, Du Moulin does not go on to deny the utility of praying to her for intercession. See Holban, “François du Moulin de Rochefort et la querelle de la Madeleine,” 152. 64 Agones martyrum mensis januarii [ Paris: Henri Estienne, 1519], 80 fols. Rice, Prefatory Epistles, no. CCLXXV, 562. Despite Lefèvre abandoning this project, Glareanus later published his own work, dedicating it to Zwingli and other worthies of Zurich. See, ZW 7, no. 76, 168–170; 169, n. 9: “Glareans Bearbeitung der Zürcher (sic Züricher) Legende ist abgedruckt bei Hottinger, hist eccles. VIII. 1061ff., unter der Überscrift: Divorum Felicis, Regulae et Exuperantii Agon, mit vorgesetztem Brief an Propst Felix Frei, aus Paris (ohne datum), worin der Verfasser sagt: ‘Elaboravimus autem, ut ex veteribus scriptoribus, quantum fieri potuit, historia haec initium sumeret,’ und am Schlusse: ‘Sed haec tibi et universo collegio, viris humanissimis, deinde et Huldrico Zwinglio, propter summam in viris optimis eruditionem etiam insigni theologo, offero etc. . . .’ ” Two years later, Glareanus’s compatriot, Wilhelm Nesen, reworked a saint’s life to rather different effect. He appended the ‘Folly of St. Nicolas’ to a work on the Luther controversy: Epistola de magistris nostris Louaniensibus . . . quibus debemus . . . illam damnationem Lutherianam [et Sequitur Vita sancti Nicolai siue stultitiae exemplar]. [Paris, Michel Lesclencher, c. 1521]. See Moreau 3, no. 186bis. 65 In chapter 56 of the Du vrai usage de la croix (1560), Farel recounts how, even when Lefèvre was “en la Papauté,” he had had a statue of Isis (the Virgin!), before which women had been prostrating themselves, replaced with a cross in order to remove the occasion of their false practice. He relates that Lefèvre’s views later became those of the reformers: “. . . ce [the replacement of the statue of Mary with a cross] fut pourtant qu’il pensoit beaucoup mieux faire à cause qu’il n’entendoit pas encore pour lors, ce qu’il a bien entendu puis apres, touchant l’idolatrie qui a esté commise autour de la croix.” Guillaume Farel, Du vrai usage de la croix et autres traités, ed. Edouard Urech (La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland: Editions G. Saint-Clair, 1980), 104. 66 In 1548, Farel wrote in his unpublished “Epistre à tous seigneurs et peuples et pasteurs a qui le Seigneur en a donné accès”: “. . . ces legendes, après lesquelles ce bon Faber avoit travaillées et desjà deux mois de martirs estoyent imprimés, car il avoit

138

chapter four

many evangelicals came to believe that Christ is the sole mediator and intercessor before God, to the exclusion of all other intermediaries. For them, the Saints would remain exemplary Christians, even divine choristers who added their voices to those of the heavenly hosts, but only in so far as they were incorporated into Christ and not as efficacious intercessors between the living and their savior.67

déliberé de mettre tout ce qu’il en pouvoit trouver, et le jour et l’année de tous. Mais ayant entendu la grosse idolatrie qui estoit es prieres des Saincts et que ces legendes y servent comme de soulphre à allumer le feu, il laissa tout et se mit du tout après la Saincte Ecriture,” quoted in Bedouelle, Lefèvre, 73, n. 19, from Du vray usage de la croix de Jésus-Christ (Geneva: Fick, 1965), 172. Cf. Quadroni, Farel corr., no. 1021, 95 with reference to L. Aubert, “Un opuscule de Farel,” Musée neuchâtelois (1930), 167–179. Rice, Prefatory Epistles, has found, contrary to Farel’s statement, only one month of saints’ lives published by Lefèvre. See note 64. 67 Hughes, Lefèvre, 128, cites Lefèvre’s 1522 commentary on the Gospels for Lefèvre’s assertion, based on Luke 21:5, that “if anyone who is praying places his confidence in the intercession of the blessed Virgin or of all the saints, whoever they may be, rather than in Jesus Christ alone, he is not praying as he ought.” When discussing Lefèvre’s evolving view on purgatory, Bedouelle points out that he (and his colleagues) explicitly rejected the doctrine that the intercession of the saints or prayers for the dead had any effect; Bedouelle, Lefèvre, 201–207, esp. 203–204. Bedouelle cites their homily on the story of the rich man in hell who cries out to Abraham asking that the beggar, Lazarus, whose needs he had neglected in life, be sent to quench his thirst [Luke 16:19–31]. Their interpretation reads: “En ce lieu là, il n’y a point d’aide, il fault que la justice de Dieu se face [sans remède], qui est bien monstré, quant n’a peu obtenir pour priere, ne pour luy ne pour autruy, ne pour les mortz ne pour les vifz. Il [Lazarus] cuydoit estre exaulcé par Abraham, et que Abraham peust aucune chose, mais Abraham renvoye (non point pour le riche, car il estoit trop tard pour luy, mais pour ceulx qui encore estoient au monde) à la parolle de Dieu. Car c’est là où il nous fault aller, c’est celle par laquelle en donnant foy, Dieu nous veult sauver non point [par esperitz ou] ceulx qui sont passéz de ce monde. . . . Nous avons ses [Christ’s] prophets, les apostres, nous avons les anciens prophetes, oyons les, et ayons foy en leurs parolles, non point comme de eulx, mais de Dieu, et nous ne irons point en tormentz avec le riche, ambitieux, et voluptueux. Mais nous irons . . . avec Jesuchrist au royaulme de Dieu, où est joye et gloire sans fin, à le louer avec Abraham, tous les anges, et tous les sainctz eternellement.” Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples et al., Epistres et Evangiles pour les cinquante et deux dimenches de l’an: Texte de l’édition Pierre de Vingle, ed. Guy Bedouelle and Franco Giacone (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976), 232–33. Bedouelle’s analysis concurs with Henry Heller, who cites similar passages against the cult of the saints from this work as well as Lefèvre’s 1526 work on the Psalter, “The Evangelicism of Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples, 1525,” Studies in the Renaissance 19 (1972), 42–77, esp. 71–72. See further chapter 11 for our presentation of Gérard Roussel’s recasting of the cult circa 1550.

the fabrist background to the navarrian network

139

Prepared but not Destined for Meaux The Magdalene affair had not reached its conclusion before Lefèvre and his disciples arrived at Meaux in the spring of 1521. Why they went to Meaux and there engaged in a novel endeavor to instruct the laity directly is somewhat puzzling. In chapter 5 we will consider the factors that attracted them to Meaux. By 1521, the Fabrists’ great patron and ally, Guillaume Briçonnet, certainly needed their help. After three years, his attempts to reform his clergy and instruct his flock were foundering. The Fabrists, as experienced teachers and editors of what they believed to be the finest patristic and medieval works for training the clergy and inculcating piety, were magnificently equipped to ameliorate such a condition. However, as Glareanus’s letter on Lefèvre’s reasons for quitting Paris clearly indicates,68 by 1521 the path leading from their studies antibarbari to sympathy with Luther, even after he published his strident attack on the Babylonian Captivity of the church, had brought them to a difficult crossroads. By 1521, Lefèvre had been forced to flee Paris but it was not clear, at least to his Swiss friend, that Meaux or the reform there had been his or his followers’ planned destination. Yet the Fabrist circle at Meaux would soon become the nursery of the French evangelical movement. Why? By 1520, the Fabrists had openly entered the lists of those biblical humanists who would side with the German reformers in the ensuing conflict. The Magdalene affair was but one of the battles during which the likes of Lefèvre, Reuchlin, Beatus Rhenanus, Henry Cornelius Agrippa von Nettesheim, Glareanus, Zwingli, Oecolampadius, Bucer, Luther, and others exchanged messages of mutual support and concern. As seen above, this international solidarity is clearly in evidence in the letters of Lefèvre to Beatus Rhenanus and Glareanus to Zwingli. Furthermore, it was advertised to the world in the editor’s introduction to the 1520 Basel edition of Luther’s works, in which the Wittenberg theologian and Lefèvre were lionized as champions of the new doctrines. Erasmus’s well-known report to Alexander Schweiss of March 1521—repeated to Louis Guillard in June with variations reflecting the Sorbonne’s condemnation of Luther in April—epitomized the perceived common cause between biblical humanists and the nascent reformers. He related that a Carmelite (or Dominican, in the June telling) preach-

68

See note 22.

140

chapter four

ing before Francis I had announced that the Antichrist was at hand and that his four precursors had reared their heads: a certain Franciscan in Italy, Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples in France, Reuchlin (Luther in the June telling) in Germany, and Erasmus in Brabant.69 The chief enemy of this group, at least in France, Erasmus noted, was the Faculty of Theology led by Noël Beda and Guillaume Duchesne (Quercus).70 Although the Fabrists were to side largely with the German Reformers, we should not exaggerate the unity of this erstwhile coalition (as the Paris doctors of theology did with such zeal during the early 1520s) by disregarding the Fabrists’ real differences with followers of Erasmus, Luther, or Zwingli. It is nevertheless true that the Fabrists and the supporters of the latter three shared a sense of common cause circa 1520, even if this sense was to be sorely tested and split by the Reformation.71 Their solidarity had roots dating back to the Reuchlin affair in 1514.72 By 1520, conflict had further galvanized their ranks, although they did not agree what should be done to prepare for the religious storm they realized was soon to break.

69 In the midst of a long list of ‘monks’ who have been linking Erasmus to Luther and Lefèvre, he writes: “Apud Regem Galliae Carmelita quidam dixit in concione venturum Antichristum; iam quatuor esse praecursores, Minoritam nescio quem in Italia, Iacobum Fabrum Stapulensem in Gallia, Reuchlinum in Germania, Erasmum in Brabantia.” 13 March [1521], Allen 4, no 1192, 453–454, ll. 24–29. Three months later, Erasmus reports that it is a Dominican who preached, and it is now Luther, not Reuchlin, who is the Antichrist’s precursor in Germany: “Ex amicorum literis didici monachum quendam apud Christianissimum Galliarum Regem in concione magis etiam insanisse: qui dixerit iam adventurum Antichristum, cum extiterint quatuor praecursores, Minorita nescio quis in Italia, Lutherus in Germania, Iacobus Faber in Gallia, Erasmus in Brabantia.” 17 June 1521, Allen 4, no. 1212, 528, ll. 27–31. See Allen’s notes to letter no. 1192, 453, ll. 25–26 for a similar report to Agrippa von Nettesheim, 10 September 1521, in which Luther replaces the Franciscan in the foursome. Allen suggests the Franciscan was probably Bernardino Ochino. 70 See Erasmus’s report to Nicholas Everard cited in note 82. 71 It is well known that Erasmus had already had a spat with Lefèvre from 1515 to 1517 over a point of translation, and that by 1520 he was fending off charges of having spawned Luther. However, the common cause of men of good letters—linking all three scholars—was still the dominant impression and hope at the time. On this sense, see three further letters from Willibald Pirckheimer to Erasmus and from the latter to Juan Luis Vives and Francesco Chieregati, Allen 4, no. 1095, 246–47, ll. 73–95; no. 1111, 283, ll. 282–283, ll. 71–89; and no. 1144, 347–348, ll. 20–34. The last letter is particularly revealing since, when preaching against Luther in Louvain, the Carmelite Egmondanus linked Erasmus and Lefèvre’s names to Luther’s, even though he realized that their doctrines did not accord: “ ‘Nunquam,’ inquit, ‘convenit inter haereticos.’ ” 72 See Lefèvre’s epistolary exchange with Reuchlin in 1513–1514, Herminjard 1, nos. 2–4.

the fabrist background to the navarrian network

141

Lefèvre in particular exhibited a strong, principled aversion to open confrontation. This would prove an ambiguous precedent for his evangelical followers in France: following it would favor survival in a hostile climate but at the expense of taking overtly radical steps to promote their reforming goals, a price some, like Farel, would not be willing to pay. Documents showing the state of mind of Lefèvre and his disciples in 1520 are few, but Lefèvre’s influential attitude is well in evidence. The few surviving records leave the clear impression that Lefèvre lacked a sense of direction in the face of the growing controversies. By the end of 1519, he had abandoned his project on the saints in mid-stream and retreated from the arena of battle to wander in search of manuscripts, planning to be away from Paris the following year.73 The eight surviving letters in his correspondence from 1519 (there are none for 1520) reveal his growing unease. He told Agrippa that he would have preferred if the debate over Mary Magdalene and St. Anne could have been restricted to learned circles.74 Events, however, were overtaking him. Scholars were now wrangling over the cult of the saints in full view of the laity.75 If, in defending Lefèvre’s position in 1518, Clichtove had reassured critics that their views would not scandalize the people,

73 Lefèvre wrote to Agrippa von Nettesheim, 14 November 1519, from Paris: “Sed per hos [menses?] divagatus sum, neque per annum ferme figam pedem Parisiis.” Herminjard 1, no. 30, 60. Hughes claims that “Lefèvre spent several months there [at Meaux] as Briçonnet’s guest during the years 1518 and 1519.” He cites no evidence for this assertion. However, Glareanus’s letter from July 1521 cited in note 22 indicates that Lefèvre only arrived at Meaux between April and July 1521. See further Bedouelle, Lefèvre, 90–91, Hughes, Lefèvre, 129, and Graf, Essai, 93–94. None of these three scholars has found precise evidence about his whereabouts during 1520. 74 “Maluissem negotium de Anna sine contentione inter doctos versari. Quod si non potest, propter malignitatem temporis et perversa hominum ingenia, et tibi insidet animo contendere, vide ne hoc ullo pacto honoris mei zelo feceris, sed solum veritatis tutandae et devotionis in Deiparam Mariam et ejus matrem beatissimam Annam.” 20 June [1519], Herminjard 1, no. 25, 53. 75 Agrippa reported from Metz [April 1519] that Lefèvre’s many enemies were denouncing him to the people: “Quorum quidem multi sunt, sed homines improbi animi et miseri ingenii, qui omnibus bonis literis sunt hostes,—tamen qui scioli sunt apud rudem populum, et fidem sibi vendicant hypocrisi—ut difficile, imo non sine periculo, illis resistant. Neque tamen ob hoc deterreor ab officio.” Herminjard 1, no. 21, 47. He repeated this assertion to Lefèvre in November, saying that the theologians did not dare battle with them in public but, among the learned and powerful, used devious ways and back-stabbing attacks while insinuating in the minds of the gullible public that they held heretical beliefs: “. . . qui [sophistae = theologians] cum aperto Marte contra nos nihil valeant, per cuniculos furtive adoriuntur, sagittantes in occulto, et apud imperitum credulumque vulgus nos erroris insimulant, deferentes nos tanquam de haeresi et insanis opinionibus.” Herminjard 1, no. 29, 58.

142

chapter four

Lefèvre now had clear proof in 1519 that conservative opponents were stirring the people up against him and his colleagues.76 In response, Lefèvre counseled his supporters to back down, arguing that error would fall of its own accord, or rather that the Holy Spirit would make the truth manifest in due time.77 Luther’s refusal to retract his views before the emperor at Worms perhaps typifies the differences between Lefèvre and the German reformers. They diverged not in whether they obeyed the dictates of conscience but in whether they chose to take roads that might lead to confrontation (as at Worms) and, in Lefèvre’s view, the hardening of hearts. As far as he speaks to the matter, Lefèvre indicates that controversy was not the price or occasion for proclaiming the Word, but an obstacle to the work of the Holy Spirit. His was a pacific view and not one that left much room for action in the face of persecution. For the Meaux reform to survive and the evangelical movement to develop, Lefèvre’s hardier young disciples and his powerful patrons would have to offer more creative responses to the enduring problem of persecution. By the spring of 1521, Lefèvre and his disciples had to move from Paris. Partisans of the new ideas faced severe pressure there and little hope of seeing their views prevail. An uneasy peace reigned in the year leading up to the formal condemnation of Luther’s doctrines by the Paris faculty in April of 1521. While new tracts against Lefèvre’s Magdalene thesis appeared, attention had turned to the Faculty of Theology in anticipation of its decision on Luther. The theologians guarded their

76 Clicthove had written in his prefatory epistle to the second printing addressed to François Du Moulin de Rochefort: “At, populus scandalizabitur si tres audierit, cum semper ei unica praedicata fuerit. Veritas non scandalizat, sed falsitas. Veritatis autem lux illuminat animas et ad salutem aedificat. Et id falsum semper unicam annuntiatam fuisse. . . . At dices, si populus non scandalizabitur, attamen si tres ponantur, eius devotio minuetur. Immo crescet!” Clichtove explains that a greater number of people would be able to identify with one or other of the three Marys than the one Magdalene. Prefatory Epistle to De Maris Magdalena, triduo Christi, et ex tribus una Maria, disceptatio: ad clarissimum virum D. Franciscum Molinum, Christianissimi Francorum Regis Francisci Primi magistrum (Paris: Henri Estienne, [1518]), Rice, Prefatory Epistles, no. 124, 399–406, 403–404. 77 Lefèvre asserted this to Agrippa twice: “Falsitas in seipsa marcescet, et nullo impugnatore tandem per seipsam cadet.” 20 May 1519, Herminjard 1, no. 23, 49. “Attamen nullus accedere tibi potest honor cum illis barbaris et infamationi aliorum ultro studentibus contendendo, neque nugas eorum et frigidas et insulsas eorum ineptias refelli dignas censeo. Per se omnia ista cadent, et tandem agnoscetur veritas, et foelicius, si non contendatur, quam si contendatur, ut mea fert opinio.” 20 June [1519], Herminjard 1, no. 25, 53.

the fabrist background to the navarrian network

143

proceedings in secrecy. Their slowness in coming to a decision has been variously interpreted as reflecting dissension in their ranks, an unwillingness to preempt the pope’s decision, or an effort to maintain their independence over against the decisions of other authorities.78 Ulrich von Hutten’s announcement to Martin Bucer on 25 November 1520 that “from France and Switzerland, the silence is astounding” attests to the strange calm before the storm.79 A letter from Glareanus to Zwingli dated 1 November 1520 captures the confused, expectant mood in Paris. Despite a rumor that the Faculty of Theology would not judge Luther after the pope’s condemnation, Glareanus feared that soon all true Christians would be labeled heretics. He admitted that Luther’s works were being read more avidly and more favorably than ever. “But,” he warned, “the monks pose a steely barrier.”80 Meanwhile in Wittenberg, Martin Luther had received similarly misleading news from Paris. Even after the pope’s recent condemnation, he heard that the Faculty of Theology would only censure two of his theses. This would have been a moral victory for his party,81 but these hopes were illusory. A month before the faculty’s formal condemnation (15 April 1521), Erasmus saw that the battle had been engaged and he intimated that insidious measures were being taken to suppress Luther’s supporters in France.82

78

See Farge, Orthodoxy, 127–129. “De Gallo et Heluetijs mirum est silentium.” To Martin Bucer, in Bucer, Corr. 1, no. 20, 124–127; 125. 80 “Tu, mi Uldrice, hominem consiliis adiuva! potes namque et vides eo nunc redactam rem, ut statim heresios [!] crimine etiam innocentisimos ipsi ignavissimi insimulent. Nisi huic rabiei occurratur, huc tandem res devenient, ut sit Christianus, qui omnia adversus Christum agat; qui Christi decreta observet, sit haereticus. Nunc de Luthero audi nova. Universitas Parisiensis, quandoquidem ad eam ipsam discepatio inter Geckium et Lutherum delata fuit, tanquam ad judicem, posteaquam audivit, damnatum Lutherum a Pontifice Maximo, ipsa, quae quosdam articulos fotassis vellicatura erat, nunc judicio supersedit. Nulli libri avidius emuntur. Audivi a bibliopola quodam, qui ait, sese Francivadi nuperis nundinis vendidisse exemplaria mille et quadringenta, quot nunquam antea alicuius auctoris. Passim bene dicitur Luthero. Verum monachorum longa est cathena.” ZW 7, no. 160, 360–364; 362, Herminjard 1, no. 32, 62–63 (excerpt). 81 “Scribit B. Adelmannus . . . se ex homine digno fide accepisse, Parrhisienses Theologos omnes articulos in bulla damnatos censuisse Christianissimos praeter duos, quos disputabiles haberent. Idem ex inferioribus partibus accepimus. Det Dominus ita esse & fore.” Luther to Spalatin, 15 December 1520, WA Br 2, no. 362, 235, ll. 9–15. 82 Erasmus made the sensational accusation that some of Luther’s supporters at Paris had been poisoned. He suspected that Girolamo Aleandro, the papal nuncio, had resorted to this evil with the pope’s blessing: “Res, ut audio, nunc agitur venenis: Parisiis sublati sunt aliquot, qui Lutherum manifeste defendebant. Fortassis hoc in mandatis est ut, 79

144

chapter four

While these storm clouds were building, the key condition for the future survival of the Meaux group had been secured strong favor at court. Although the royal family did not know Lefèvre personally or even by reputation before the Magdalene affair,83 court familiars such as Guillaume Briçonnet, Guillaume Budé, Guillaume Petit, Jean Chapelain, and François Du Moulin knew the little scholar from Étaples well and were outspoken supporters of the humanist movement.84 In light of the growing controversy it is crucial to note that during the Mary Magdalene and St. Anne debates, the court became aware of the new biblical exegesis and its challenge to received tradition. Patronage at court was indispensable to the ambitious plans of the Fabrists. The court’s ensuing favor is all the more remarkable since Lefèvre’s new views had thrown cold water on Louise and Marguerite’s enthusiasm for the saints as intercessors, indeed, as the central focus of their devotional life. Lefèvre had probably been asked to reconsider the legend of St. Anne as a direct response to Marguerite’s interest. In 1518, before Lefèvre turned to this subject, Du Moulin had dedicated a thoroughly traditional work, La messe de Sainte Anne, to Marguerite because her barren marriage made her particularly devoted to this patron saint of female fertility.85 In a subsequent illuminated manu-

quoniam aliter vinci non possunt hostes Sedis Romanae (sic enim illi vocant, qui harpyis illis non per omnia obsequuntur), veneno tollantur cum benedictione Pontificis. Hac arte valet Aleander. Is me Coloniae impensissme rogabat ad prandium; ego, quo magis ille instabat, hoc pertinacius excusavi. Aduersus condonationes hoc erit remedium, si nihil detur: donec dabitur melior occasio explodendi has impias cauponationes. Haec liberius apud te effudi, vir optime. Cavebis ne haec espistola aberret in manus multorum; nam Germani evulgant quidquid nacti fuerint.” To Nicholas Everard, [March, 1521], Allen 4, no. 1188, 446–448; Herminjard 1, no. 34, 64–65 (extract). 83 Holban cites a passage from Du Moulin’s Vie de sainte Madeleine (1517) (BnF F.fr. 24955) that indicates Lefèvre was not, in fact, known to Louise or Marguerite prior to 1518. Du Moulin speaks of him, without naming him, as “ung homme moult sçavant” and “ung ancien homme que vous aimeriez bien Madame si vous aviez connaissance de ses vertus.” See her “François du Moulin de Rochefort et la querelle de la Madeleine,” 35. 84 For example, Chapelain, Louise of Savoy’s physician, had lent manuscripts to Lefèvre for his 1516 editions of Lull’s Book of Proverbs. Thus, Marguerite could have had a significant introduction to mysticism from him well before her correspondence with Guillaume Briçonnet. See Rice, no. 118, 373–378, 377–378 n. 6. Chapelain was not Marguerite’s doctor as asserted by Hughes, Lefèvre, 12. See Lefranc, Comptes, 14 where he is listed as Louise’s physician for 1522. 85 BnF F.fr. 1035. Myra Orth argues that in this early tract Du Moulin expresses the traditional views about St. Anne and betrays no knowledge of Lefèvre’s views: “La stérilité de la jeune princesse explique sa dévotion a la sainte patronne de la fécondité et de la famille (f. 3v). La messe et l’office chantés (f. 6–16) sont précédés dans le manuscrit

the fabrist background to the navarrian network

145

script on St. Anne, Petit livret faict a l’honneur de Madame Saincte Anne (1518/1519), Du Moulin related Lefèvre’s new findings about St. Anne, mentioning him by name for the first time, specifically with the intention of winning royal protection for the then embattled arts master.86 While scholars were debating Lefèvre’s Magdalene and St. Anne theses on the basis of exegetical principles and church tradition, Du Moulin portrayed the conflict in moral terms, depicting the friars and theologians opposing Lefèvre as scoundrels animated by greed, whereas Lefèvre was a simple man only interested in the truth. He also guaranteed Lefèvre’s orthodoxy: “Faber says that the church is mother of the faith, while other stupid men want to make her a mistress of errors and lies.”87 Du Moulin advised Louise that she should have the

par une longue introduction alambiquée qui fait allusion aux trois mariages de sainte Anne et à sa lignée, qui préfigurait la ‘saincte église militante.’ (f. 2v).” Myra D. Orth, “Manuscrits pour Marguerite,” in Marguerite de Navarre, 1492–1992: Actes du colloque international de Pau (1992), ed. Nicole Cazauran and James Dauphiné (Mont-de-Marsan: Editions InterUniversitaires, 1995), 85–105; 89. On the royal family’s desire that Marguerite become pregnant, see further a prayer composed by Du Moulin for Louise in the Vie de sainte Madeleine, in which she is to say “Et ie suys sa [the Magdalene’s] tres humble creature desirant paix et pacience. Et que ma fille Claude soit grosse d’ung filz et ma fille Marguerite pareillement. Faictez donc que mon desir me soit ottroye pour le bien de la chose publique et pour le mien particulier affin que ie puysse vivre en amour fiable avecquez mes enfans.” Cited in Holban, “François du Moulin de Rochefort et la querelle de la Madeleine,” 152–153, n. 3. 86 Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal (Paris) MS 4009. As Holban notes, Du Moulin voiced severe criticisms against Lefèvre’s opponents, calling them: “les theologians et les frâtres predicquaires,” “papelards, asnes, hypochrites prescheurs, frères troteurs, envieux, faulx hipochrytes et herticques, calumpniateurs et faulx accusateurs, gros asnes hypochrytes et meschans hommes, aucuns ignorans, folastres.” He denounces a specific adversary as a “barbouilleur theologiste,” “theologian chapronné,” and “caphart,” whom Holban identifies with Noël Beda. In Du Moulin’s works we have a veritable lexicon of French anticlericalism. See Holban, “François du Moulin de Rochefort et la querelle de la Madeleine,” 155–166. Du Moulin’s anticlerical views were either reflecting or informing the royal family’s opinions about a whole gamut of prelates, monks, friars, and theologians especially in the wake of their protests against the Concordat. Du Moulin attacks also served his own unabashed quest to secure benefices under the new system of royal election. See Gordon Griffiths, “Louise of Savoy and the Reformation of the Church,” SCJ 10 (1979), 29–36; and Myra Dickman Orth, “François du Moulin and the Journal of Louise de Savoie,” SCJ 13 (1982), 56–66. 87 “Fabri dit que l’eglise est mere de foy, et aulcuns ignorants hommes la veulent faire maistresse d’erreur et de mensonge, pource qu’ils sont si durs et si obstines qu’ils ne veulent riens approuver sinon ce qu’ils sçavent et leur semble que toutes choses sont bonnes si elles sont approuvees par long usage [en marge ‘comme avez congneu par la cassation de la pragmatique’].” Arsenal MS 4009, fol. 61v, cited in Holban, “François du Moulin de Rochefort et la querelle de la Madeleine,” 162, n. 1. The marginal comment “as you have seen during the revocation of the Pragmatic [Sanction of Bourges]” refers

146

chapter four

Magdalene dispute submitted to the pope for a decision and that Lefèvre would abide by it.88 Despite Lefèvre’s challenges to the legends of the favorite saints of the royal family, Du Moulin had evidently succeeded in convincing Louise of Lefèvre’s orthodoxy, for the court would subsequently defend Lefèvre and his followers from condemnation by the Faculty of Theology of Paris. In Du Moulin’s pledge on behalf of Lefèvre lay the beginnings of a crucial constructive misunderstanding between Louise and Francis, and the evangelicals whom Marguerite was to support. It is unlikely that circa 1520 Lefèvre and his disciples regarded the pope’s pronouncements as the touchstone of faith. If so, this would help to explain quite neatly why they subsequently disregarded the condemnation of Luther and maintained doctrines dissenting from the pope and church, but not, of course, why they did not publicize their views more openly. If, however, evangelicals held the pope’s authority in high regard, as Du Moulin claimed Lefèvre did, this would explain why, despite their less than orthodox ideas, they never broke with the church—but not why they failed to embrace its rule of faith. So did Lefèvre believe the pope to be the infallible and final judge of true doctrine or not? Jean-Pierre Massaut has asserted that, in the De tribus et unica Magdalena disceptatio secunda of 1519, the final version of Lefèvre’s Magdalene treatise, Lefèvre said he was willing to submit his work to the pope’s judgment. If true, this admission would validate Du Moulin’s pledge to Louise. Massaut concludes from this that Lefèvre’s thought “was no less theological, nor less ecclesiological” than that of his theologian friend Clichtove, who would become a leading defender of the church and opponent of Luther in France.89 He cites as evidence what he calls Lefèvre’s “magnificent profession of faith, whose every part must be

to clerical opposition to the Concordat: a bit of evidence well-calculated to convince Louise about the fallibility of church tradition. 88 Du Moulin wrote to Louise: “Toutesfoiz de tout ce que nous avons faict ne peut sortir effect si nous qui en estez cause n’y mettez la main. Et que faciez escrire le Roy a nostre sainct pere pour y adviser. Et s’il se treuve que Fabri ayt bien escript, je requiers comme procureur de Fabri sans avoir procuration de luy que la celebration et solennité de la Magdalene soit changee. . . . Si aussi il se treuve que la commune opinion de l’esglise soit bonne, que le livre de Fabri soit bruslé et que jamais n’en soit nouvelles. . . . Car sans riens decider jusquez a ce que l’autorite du Pape soit intervenue par manière de disputation Fabri veut monstrer . . . [his arguments].” Cited in Holban, “François du Moulin de Rochefort et la querelle de la Madeleine,” 157, n. 1. 89 “. . . n’en est pas moins théologique, ni même moins ecclésiale,” Massaut, Critique et tradition, 99.

the fabrist background to the navarrian network

147

retained!”90 Without citing the Latin as he is careful to do elsewhere, Massaut characterizes Lefèvre’s position in the following convoluted passage in which he both summarizes and quotes in translation from De tribus et unica Magdalena disceptatio secunda: Nevertheless, Lefèvre submitted his work to the pope’s judgment. If the pope should find that his views accord with the gospel and piety towards Mary Magdalene, whatever should then happen, Lefèvre would be completely reassured. “Moreover, I [Lefèvre now being quoted] wish to hold to the positions of our mother, the holy church, and not deviate from it by a hair’s breadth. I know, in effect, through the testimony of Irenaeus, ear-witness to Polycarp, who was a disciple of John the Evangelist, that ‘Wherever the church is, there is the Spirit of God; Wherever the Spirit of God is, there is the church and every grace. Now the Spirit is truth.’ If, therefore, I cling to the truth, I can in no way consider as an obstacle to truth—without contradicting the church—a different way of thinking, however long its use may have been suffered. For, wherever the church is, there is the truth.” In any case, Lefèvre adds, if I have erred in my theses (disceptationes), I will not have obstructed the truth, since I have not attempted to define or fix the truth of anything, leaving that to competent authorities.91

Massaut implies that in this so-called profession of faith, with its complex equation of the church, the Spirit of God, and truth, Lefèvre affirms the church hierarchy and, ultimately, the pope as the arbiters of doctrine and practice. Massaut introduces this passage with a “nevertheless” (“Cependant Lefèvre soumet son travail au pape . . .”) in order to signal that it qualifies another statement by Lefèvre that would seem

90 “. . . magnifique profession de foi, dont il ne faut isoler aucun élément!” Massaut, Critique et tradition, 98. 91 “Cependant Lefèvre soumet son travail au pape. Si le pape le trouve conforme à la lumière de l’Évangile et à la piété envers sainte Marie, sœur de Marthe, Lefèvre, quoi qu’il advienne, sera tout à fait rassuré. ‘Car, par ailleurs, je [Lefèvre now being quoted] veux m’en tenir aux positions de notre mère la sainte Église et ne m’en écarter pas même de la largeur d’un ongle. Je sais, en effet, par le témoignage d’Irénée, auditeur de Polycarpe, lui-même disciple de Jean l’Évangéliste, que “où est l’Église, là est l’Esprit de Dieu; où est l’Esprit de Dieu, là sont l’Église et toute grâce; or l’Esprit est vérité.” Si donc je m’attache à la vérité, je ne puis en rien considérer comme un obstacle à la vérité, sans contredire l’Église, une façon différente de penser, depuis si longtemps qu’en ait été toléré l’usage. Car où est l’Église, là est la vérité.’ De toute manière, ajoute Lefèvre, si j’avais tort dans mes disceptationes, je ne mettrais pas d’obstacles à la vérité, puisque je ne prétends rien définir, rien déterminer, laissant ce soin aux autorités compétentes.” Massaut, Critique et tradition, 98 summarizing from De tribus et unica Magdalena disceptatio secunda, fols. 39v–40r. I have not been able to consult the Latin original.

148

chapter four

to refute this view. Again, without citing the original Latin, Massaut quotes Lefèvre: Clearly, those authors [refuting my views] are influential and there is a great crowd of them. But the gospel is stronger than an infinite number of authors. Old habits die hard, even when they are false, and especially when, though false, they claim the authority of the church. But the truth is stronger still. After more than three thousand years of idolatrous cults, did not the spreading of the light and truth of the gospel in one blow dispel this error, which was spread throughout the world? . . . In the end, the truth is eternal and immutable.92

It should be noted here that Massaut has inverted the order in which Lefèvre developed these arguments, which is restored in the presentation above. Lefèvre’s so-called profession of faith in the church is not a qualification of the view that “the gospel is stronger than an infinite number of authors,” but rather itself qualified by the latter statement. In the second passage, Lefèvre clearly asserts that the gospel or truth is stronger than any false tradition, even one that is backed by church authority and thousands of years of tradition. Lefèvre has left a degree of ambiguity in these statements about the touchstone of religious truth, perhaps intentionally, since he does not indicate whether he is speaking of the militant or the mystical church when affirming “wherever the church is, there is the truth.” Yet, Lefèvre states plainly enough that the ‘church’ does not have authority over the gospel; rather, the gospel, the Holy Spirit, and truth are constitutive of it. Lefèvre affirms that the gospel is the source of truth that will purge tradition of false beliefs, even ones sanctioned by the church or the pope. This interpretation of Lefèvre’s understanding circa 1519 of the relationship between the gospel and church, in any event, accords better with the subsequent reluctance of Lefèvre and his disciples to speak about or to define the nature of the ‘church militant.’ When the Fabrists discuss the church in the 1525 Epistres et Evangiles, they define it

92 “Certes les auteurs sont puissants, et nombreuse est la foule des auteurs [opposing his views]. Mais l’Évangile est plus fort qu’une infinité d’auteurs. Puissante aussi est une vieille habitude, même si elle est fausse, et, d’ordinaire, bien que fausse, elle revendique l’autorité de l’Église. Mais la vérité est plus forte encore. Après plus de trois mille ans de culte idolâtrique, la diffusion de la lumière et la vérité de l’Évangile n’a-t-elle pas dissipé d’un coup l’erreur répandue dans le monde entier? . . . Et puis, enfin, la vérité est éternelle et imprescriptible.” Massaut, Critique et tradition, 98, summarizing De tribus et unica Magdalena disceptatio secunda, fol. 40r–v.

the fabrist background to the navarrian network

149

in terms of the community of believers incorporated into Christ, “the body of Christ,” not in terms of the existing hierarchy.93 In sum, Lefèvre and his disciples were ready for a new venture by 1521. In the signs of the times they saw that great change was on the way. With Lefèvre’s treatises on the Magdalene and St. Anne and his book of saints’ lives, he had turned to address the laity, whom he had never before directly engaged in print. The final step for the Fabrists into a new era was not doctrinal in the traditional sense. Their evangelical theology was already well in place, founded on solus Christus, Christ alone, without which Scripture remained mere scripture (sola scriptura) and sola fides —sola gratia without referent.94 But now they began to see not only that the gospel was the truth but that it was their duty “to proclaim it to people everywhere.”95 This new conviction would entail a momentous reorientation of their careers. By the time the Fabrists moved to Meaux and set about engaging the people directly from the pulpit, via the press, and in the vernacular, their European scholarly reputation, their solidarity with the emerging German reformers, their close relationship with many leading prelates, their growing favor at court, and the notoriety of the Magdalene controversy all ensured that they would become the focus of religious tensions within France.

93 Guy Bedouelle and Franco Giacone’s introduction to Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples et al., Epistres et Evangiles pour les cinquante et deux dimenches de l’an (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976), xlix–l. 94 “. . . scriptura sine Christo scriptura sola est et littera quae occidit.” See the full text in note 33. 95 See chapter 1, note 6.

CHAPTER FIVE

THE MEAUX EXPERIMENT I: FROM CLERICAL REFORM TO EVANGELICAL RENEWAL, 15181523

The Meaux Reform (1521–1525) was the first and among the most important founding episodes of the Reformation in France.1 Testifying to its contemporary impact, the Faculty of Theology of Paris, journal writers, and foreign observers portrayed the Meaux group as influential, and therefore dangerous, banner carriers of the ‘Lutheran’ heresy. In contrast, the European movements of biblical humanism and the Luther affair of the same period, which influenced the Meaux experiment, have left little trace in France.2 Most of the few French figures known to have been actively engaged with these movements, humanists in Paris, Poitiers, Lyon, Avignon, and Toulouse, had connections with the Meaux group. Thus, while Lefèvre and his disciples created a sensation, there is

1 All histories of France and of the French Reformation for this period give the Meaux reform prominent coverage. For the best modern studies, see: Michel Veissière, L’évêque Guillaume Briçonnet (1470 –1534): Contribution à la connaissance de la Réforme catholique à la veille du Concile de Trente (Provins: Société d’Histoire et d’Archéologie, 1986), a biography of the bishop of Meaux, which provides an able reconstruction of events. Henry Heller provides a masterful analysis of the evangelical and mystical thought of Briçonnet, Lefèvre d’Étaples, and Marguerite as well as their broader social impact at Meaux. See his “Popular Roots of the Reformation: ‘Lutherans of Meaux’ (1525–1546),” ch. in The Conquest of Poverty; “Marguerite of Navarre and the Reformers of Meaux,” BHR 33 (1971), 279–310; “Nicholas of Cusa and early French evangelicalism,” ARG 63 (1972), 6–21; “The Briçonnet Case Reconsidered,” Journal of Mediaeval and Renaissance Studies 2 (1972), 223–258; “The Evangelicalism of Lefèvre d’Étaples: 1525,” Studies in the Renaissance 19 (1972), 42–77; and “Famine, Revolt and Heresy at Meaux: 1521–1525,” ARG 68 (1977), 133–157. Theses articles reprise the bulk of Heller’s dissertation, “Reform and Reformers at Meaux, 1518–1525,” Ph.D. thesis, Cornell University, New York, 1969. The Meaux reform and the early influence of the German Reformation in France comprise a major section of the third volume of Imbart de la Tour’s rich Les origines de la Réforme, 58–272; see inter alia for Meaux, 150–153, 158–169, 185–189, 206–235, 239–241. 2 Drawing on evidence from municipal and episcopal archives, Imbart de la Tour established that during the early 1520s Lutheran ideas made a significant impact at Paris, Bordeaux, Avignon, Meaux, Grenoble, Bourges, and Rouen, Origines 3, 169–172. Nathaniel Weiss ably studied the connections in the 1520s between French evangelicals at Meaux and beyond in the 1520s with the reformers in Strasbourg, Basel, Zurich, and Wittenberg. See chapter 7, note 13.

152

chapter five – the meaux experiment i

little evidence that the Reformation movement initially enjoyed much support in France. Over the next thirty years, however, members of the Meaux group would go on to lead a broad spectrum of French people seeking religious renewal. The reform at Meaux initiated by Briçonnet and transformed by the Fabrists has been studied from a variety of perspectives, but we still have no full picture of their intentions. Nor can we adequately explain the relationship of the Meaux reform to the growth of a broader evangelical movement. Michel Veissière, Henry Heller, and René-Jacques Lovy have traced the development of the religious dissent at Meaux after the departure of the Fabrists in 1525 to another major episode in the early Reformation in French: the ill-fated establishment there of the first Reformed church on French soil in 1545.3 No study has attempted to follow the careers of the Meaux group after 1525, tracing the growth of a larger evangelical sodality around them. Most scholars point to the widely diverging trajectories over the following decades of a few notable ex-Meaux campaigners—from Guillaume Farel, who become the leader of Swiss French Protestantism before Calvin, on one extreme, to Martial Mazurier, who become an early champion of the Jesuits, on the other—in order to demonstrate that no such thing as ‘an evangelical movement’ actually emerged. Rather, they assert that evangelicals were individualistic and disunited, religious aspirants who had at best a confused longing for spiritual renewal but lacked a doctrinal core, social grounding, or powerful leaders.4 In a still unsurpassed 1845 biographical essay on Marguerite’s almoner, Gérard Roussel, Charles Schmidt came close to arguing for a post-Meaux evangelical sodality.5 While evoking this broad horizon, his treatment was too limited to give more than a glimpse of the larger picture. In order to trace the development of Marguerite’s network around a core of ex-Meaux campaigners, we need to inspect those cradle years, when the Fabrists transformed Briçonnet’s episcopal reform program by directing it toward the new goal of evangelical renewal. We will

3 See note 1. Veissière only recounts the history of Meaux until the end of Briçonnet’s episcopacy, 1534. 4 For a critical assessment of the historiographical consensus about the formlessness of the early evangelical movement in France, see the introduction. 5 Charles Schmidt, Gérard Roussel: Prédicateur de la reine Marguerite de Navarre. Mémoire, servant à l’histoire des premières tentatives faites pour introduire la Réforme en France (Strasbourg: Schmidt and Grukner, 1845; repr. Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1970).

from clerical reform to evangelical renewal, – 153 also want to assess why, in the early summer of 1521, Lefèvre and his disciples decided to join forces with Guillaume Briçonnet. Did they back into the Reformation era or march forward to embrace it? Abundant sources, including some recently recovered documents, permit a comparison of Briçonnet’s diocesan reform before and after the Fabrists’ arrival.6 First, as the basis for the comparison, we will show that Bishop Guillaume Briçonnet’s effort to regenerate his clergy prior to the arrival of the Fabrists (1517–1521) was itself on the developing edge of a well-established late medieval episcopal reform campaign. Second, against this precedent and that of the Fabrists’ educational reforms at Paris (studied in chapter 4), their program of religious instruction at Meaux is revealed as a self-conscious, innovative, coherent, and distinctly ‘evangelical’ development.

Clerical Reform to 1521 The Ideal of Episcopal Reform After taking part in negotiating the Concordat of Bologna, Guillaume Briçonnet took up residence in his diocese in 1517 to attend to its pastoral care. This move was not unprecedented in his career, nor did his

6 The abundant sources relating to the Meaux reform are well known: 1) Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples’ several publications from these years: his Latin Commentary on the Gospels (1522); French translation of the New Testament (1523) and Psalms (1524); Latin Commentary on the Catholic Epistles (1527; written 1524–1525). His programmatic prefaces to these works and those of his disciples in related treatises are edited in Rice, Prefatory Epistles, and Herminjard 1. 2) The Meaux group’s Epistres et Evangiles (1525) have been edited by Bedouelle, Giacone, and Screech. 3) Briçonnet’s synodal statutes and other records from Meaux have been published by Toussaints du Plessis, Bretonneau, Herminjard, and Veissière. 4) Marguerite and Briçonnet’s correspondence for (1521–1524), published by Martineau et al. 5) The letters of the Meaux group (1523–1526) in Herminjard 1. 6) The registers and condemnations of the Faculty of Theology of Paris edited by d’Argentré, Clerval, and Farge. 7) Assorted gleanings from contemporary journals, court records, other serial sources, as well as the correspondence of diplomats, reformers, and humanists. In this and the following chapter on the Meaux reform, we have a complementary analysis to bring from the first six groups of sources, particularly Marguerite’s under-exploited correspondence, as well as material culled from those mentioned in item 7, which does not yet function in the literature. In addition, we will bring new material to bear from Luigi di Canossa’s synodal statues (1518) and several books published at this time.

154

chapter five – the meaux experiment i

goals differ greatly from other contemporary forward-thinking prelates.7 Because of its notoriety and eventual failure, modern interpreters have seen the Meaux reform as a ‘false starting point’ for understanding the currents of Catholic reform permeating France both before and after.8 This contention holds true, to an extent. Briçonnet’s first efforts closely resembled other late-medieval episcopal reform programs. So too he ran into the same roadblocks of clerical intransigence and ignorance that had blocked past efforts. In the face of these obstacles, he adopted new practical measures and, eventually, engaged a fresh team of ministers, led by Lefèvre d’Étaples and his disciples, whose religious vision took episcopal reform in unprecedented directions. At first, Briçonnet followed the blueprint of episcopal reform that had been drafted during the preceding two generations by leading figures such as Jean Standonck, Olivier Maillard, Jean Raulin, and Claude de Seyssel.9 Having lost confidence in the leadership of Rome and the court, these reformers had singled out bishops as the ones who should be able to fulfill the constantly sidetracked, late-medieval quest to reform the

7 On Briçonnet’s previous reforms at Lodève and Saint-Germain-des-Prés, see Veissière, Guillaume Briçonnet, 41–54 and 75–86. 8 Paul Broutin, L’évêque dans la tradition pastorale, 78. Nicole Lemaître and Michel Veissière share the view that: “Après . . . [the Concordat of Bologna, 1516] les évêques, de retour dans leur diocèses décident bientôt, avec l’aval de la monarchie, de mettre en application les idées de réforme dans leur propre diocèse. L’exemple le plus célèbre, celui du diocèse de Meaux, ressemble à un phare trop lumineux au premier abord ou à la partie émergée d’un iceberg qu’il faut chercher à reconnaître pour comprendre tout un système.” See their “Lefèvre d’Étaples, Marguerite de Navarre, et les évêques de leur temps,” in Nicole Cazauran and James Dauphiné, ed., Marguerite de Navarre, 1492–1992: Actes du colloque international de Pau, 1992 (Mont-de-Marsan: Editions InterUniversitaires, 1995), 109–134.109–134, 118 (emphasis added). 9 M. Piton, “L’idéal épiscopal selon les prédicateurs français de la fin du XVe siècle et du début du XVIe,” Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 61 (1966), 77–118, 393–423 provides a magisterial overview based on a survey of ten prominent reforming preachers. His argument for a widely shared vision of the ideal bishop is particularly persuasive since, although this group was not united by any formal institutional ties, they shared similar views on the subject, “une communauté de sentiments” (78). Paul Broutin presents a broad overview of episcopal reform from Jean Gerson to the Council of Trent in L’évêque dans la tradition pastorale. John Olin offers further documentation for the view that a strong current of episcopal reform anticipated the Council of Trent’s emphasis on diocesan renewal; see his The Catholic Reformation: Savonarola to Ignatius Loyola: Reform in the Church 1495–1540 (New York: Harper & Row, 1969), xiii. David Potter surveys recent scholarship on the social origins, quality, and effectiveness of French bishops in his chapter “The Church and the Crown,” in idem, A History of France, 1460–1560: The Emergence of a Nation State (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1995), 219–231.

from clerical reform to evangelical renewal, – 155 church “in head and members.”10 Sobered by their experience, however, Maillard and Raulin believed that few prelates matched their ideal. In their view, most bishops were as corrupt as the system by which they were selected. The king and powerful families had successfully manipulated capitular elections to secure rich benefices for their favorites. Chief among the latter were the dynasties of royal officials such as the Briçonnets. While decrying royal interference in the electoral system, which was increasing, these reformers mounted public pressure by voicing their vision of the true pastor.11 The ideal bishop was a good shepherd (bon pasteur) whose duties were chiefly to nourish and to guard his flock. A century earlier, Jean Gerson had provided the basic guidelines for such a mandate, emphasizing above all that prelates must preach. Their lives should be holy examples, free from the taint of luxury and pomp, which were the normal trappings and failings of those occupying such well-endowed offices. As administrators, bishops should scrupulously monitor ecclesiastical courts so that abuses and excessive fines would not crush the laity. As overseers of the clergy, they should encourage and, if necessary, coerce them to fulfill their duties. Writing to a newly appointed bishop, Gerson drew up a clear list of duties usually associated with the reforms of the Council of Trent: a bishop should: 1) test candidates for orders and prebends personally, so as to admit only the worthy; 2) hold frequent synods in order to correct and instruct the clergy; 3) ensure that the people knew the basic articles of faith; and 4) provide priests with texts enabling them to perform the cure of souls effectively. With respect to educating the laity, he demanded schools for children and instruction during Sunday Mass for adults.12 For the clerics’ own training, he prescribed a substantial list of books, including the New Testament, Ambrose’s Liber de officiis, the Regula

10

Raulin argued that without a reform of the episcopate, no reform was possible at all, Piton, “L’idéal épiscopal,” 107–108. 11 Judging by Piton’s presentation, these reforming preachers would seem to have spent as much energy condemning corrupt episcopal elections as articulating their vision of the bishop’s duties. Their attacks were not, however, mere Gallican parti pris. For lack of worthy prelates and priests, they blamed, by turns, royal nominations as well as capitular elections and the rota system by which one third of prelacies were to go to university graduates. See Piton, “L’idéal Episcopal.” On the other hand, Jean-Marie Le Gall points out helpfully that Raulin and Standonck were ultimately not so much concerned with the system of selection used as the quality of those chosen as bishop or curate. See Le Gall, Les moines, 437–458. 12 Broutin, L’évêque dans la tradition pastorale, 16–19.

156

chapter five – the meaux experiment i

pastoralis, Gregory the Great’s homilies, Lactantius, Cassian, Gratian’s Decretum, Ludolphe of Saxony’s Vie du Christ, Jacobus de Voragine’s Légende dorée, Guy de Montrocher’s Manipulus curatorum, Guillaume Peraudi’s Summa de virtutibus et vitiis, Aquinas’s ethics in the Secunda secundae, the equivalent articles in John of Genoa’s Catholicon (Summa grammaticalis), Pierre d’Ailly’s Libellus sacramentalis, as well as his own Opus tripartitum. Following Gerson’s model, the reformers of Standonck’s generation particularly emphasized the need for prelates to serve as shining examples.13 Claude de Seyssel formulated the bishop’s five pastoral duties as: 1) residence; 2) conducting pastoral visitations; 3) spiritual direction of the faithful; 4) correction of dissidents; and 5) preaching.14 In essence, all these reformers longed for genuine pastors who would lead by example, sustain the laity with word and sacrament, and train clerics to follow their example. With Seyssel, several other prelates of Briçonnet’s generation were striving to match this standard. Scholars have rightly called attention to their substantial numbers, which included:15 François d’Estaing, Rodez (1501–1529) Étienne Poncher, *Paris (1503–1519) and *Sens (1519–1525) Hugues des Hazards, *Toul (1506–1517) Antoine d’Estaing, *Angoulême (1506–1524) Louis Pinelle, *Meaux (1511–1516) Louis Guillard, *Tournai (1513–1525) and *Chartres (1525–1553) Denis Briçonnet, *Saint-Malo (1514–1535) Jacopo Sadoleto, *Carpentras (1517–1536) Guillaume Petit, Troyes (1519–1527) and Senlis (1527–1536) Artus Fillon, *Senlis (1522–1526) 13

Piton, “L’idéal épiscopal,” 78. Claude de Seyssel, Tractatus de triplici statu viatoris (Paris-Turin, 1520). See Broutin, L’évêque dans la tradition pastorale, 27–34. 15 Nicole Lemaître and Michel Veissière provide this list of prelates and describe their careers in “Lefèvre d’Étaples, Marguerite de Navarre, et les évêques de leur temps,” 129–130; Veissière, Guillaume Briçonnet, passim; idem, “Compléments à ma biographie,” in Autour de Guillaume Briçonnet, 1470–1534 (Provins: Société d’Histoire et d’Archéologie, 1993), 35–47; and idem, “Guillaume Briçonnet, évêque de Meaux, et la réforme de son clergé,” RHE 84 (1989), 671–672. An asterisk provided here next to the name of a see signals that the bishop held one or more synods during their episcopacy for some of which there survive statutes. See André Artonne, Louis Suizard and Odette Pontal, eds., Répertoire des statuts synodaux des diocèses de l’ancienne France du XIIIe à la fin du XVIIIe siècle, Documents, Études et Répertoires publiés par l’Institut de Recherche et d’Histoire des Textes 8 (Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1969). 14

from clerical reform to evangelical renewal, – 157 Robert Ceneau, *Vence (1522–1530), Riez (1530–1532), and *Avranches (1532–1561)

Although few studies exist on the activities of French reforming bishops before Trent, it is readily apparent that this group shared a common vision of reform.16 The issue of mutual influence and interaction in this generation of prelates needs further exploration. Briçonnet’s contemporaries of the 1510s and 1520s were certainly linked to the reformers of Standonck’s generation of the 1490s through the persons of Jean Mombaer, Jean Rély, Guillaume Petit, Louis Pinelle, Josse Clichtove, Étienne Poncher, and the Amboise family.17 However complex the patterns of such influence may have been, one thing is clear: would-be reformers of Briçonnet’s generation were more divided over the rights of the Gallican church and the usefulness of biblical humanist scholarship than they were united by a shared ideal of episcopal reform. As Standonck had clashed with Guillaume Briçonnet, père, the cardinal archbishop of Reims, so his successor Beda would fulminate against Guillaume, fils, but for different reasons. Whereas Standonck criticized the father as a worldly prelate, Beda later attacked the son for taking episcopal reform in new, ‘heretical’ directions under the influence of biblical humanists.18 Yet

16 Nicole Lemaître, one of the best-informed scholars in this field, and Michel Veissière, Guillaume Briçonnet’s able biographer, make the very plausible claim that a broad current of episcopal reform was spreading throughout France on the eve of the Reformation. Based on their assessment of thirty bishops connected to Briçonnet, Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples, and Marguerite of Navarre (they missed several others), Lemaître and Veissière assert that: “Malgré les limites actuelles de la documentation, il y a déjà matière suffisante pour parler de l’influence de Lefèvre sur l’épiscopat de son temps, à divers degrés: influence orale, par son enseignement, par son action au sein d’un groupe de disciples.” And assert that: “On peut affirmer avec certitude que tous ces hommes ont partagé vers 1518–1520 une conception commune de la réforme de l’Église. Les tentatives de réforme pastorale locales sont trop nombreuses, trop groupées dans le temps pour qu’elles soient sans lien.” See their, “Lefèvre d’Étaples, Marguerite de Navarre, et les évêques de leur temps,” 110 and 122. For her major contribution to our understanding of the state of religion and episcopal reform in late-medieval and Reformation era France, see, Nicole Lemaître, Le Rouergue flamboyant: Le clergé et les fidèles du diocèse de Rodez, 1417–1563 (Paris: Cerf, 1988). 17 Despite Piton’s overly cautious proviso that the preachers whom he studied formed only “une communauté de sentiments,” many biographical details he supplies about them, their disciples, and supporters point to an inter-linked and active ‘network.’ See his “L’idéal épiscopal,” 78, and passim, as well as the discussion and notes in Rice, Prefatory Epistles, and Renaudet, Préréforme. 18 Standonck had opposed the election of Guillaume Briçonnet, père, to the see of Reims. His son, Guillaume, the future bishop of Meaux, played a major role in fixing the vote. Though Standonck lamented at the turn of the century that he could count but

158

chapter five – the meaux experiment i

the younger Briçonnet had fully adopted Standonck’s ideal of the good bishop. Like his father, however, he still stood firmly in the Royalist camp against which Beda, Standonck’s successor at the College of Montaigue, struggled to defend the Gallican church’s right to award benefices free from papal and royal interference. A Test Case of the New Model Bishop: Luigi Canossa In the years leading up to 1520, several other prelates like Seyssel and the Briçonnet brothers, both served in royal government and adopted the episcopal reform program of their long-time critics. The case of Luigi Canossa, bishop of Bayeux (1516–1532), is a particularly instructive example of the confluence of episcopal reform, biblical humanism, and royal power, because he too was intimately associated with Marguerite. Canossa was one of the many able Italians attracted to France in the wake of the Italian Wars.19 Together with the Briçonnet brothers, he rendered key service as a papal ambassador in negotiating the Concordat, for which Francis I rewarded him with the bishopric of Bayeux and other gifts worth some 12,000 l.t. Between 1523 and 1528, he served as the resident French ambassador in Venice. Well-educated and a patron of humanists, he employed the Greek scholar Jacques Toussaint in his diocese until Francis I hired him as one of the first lecteurs royaux. On becoming bishop in 1516, Canossa ambitiously offered Erasmus, who was nearing to the apex of his fame, a position at his court in Bayeux. Promising 200 ducats, 2 horses, and 2 servants, the offer was a generous compliment but not sufficiently enticing to lure away the emperor’s pensioner, who was living at his ease. While he was gratified by the mark of esteem, Erasmus declined the invitation. Despite his busy career as bishop-diplomat and patron, Canossa took a lively interest in the religious health of his diocese. Measured against the standard of Gerson, Standonck, and Seyssel, his synodal

four or five good bishops in all of France’s sees (some 115), ironically, by 1518–1520, judging by his own standards he would have had to include Guillaume and his brother Denis, among a slowly growing number of such prelates. See Piton, 411–417; cf. Veissière, Guillaume Briçonnet, 56. 19 For a thoughtful analysis of Canossa’s episcopal career, see Pierre Bourdon, “Nouvelles recherches sur Lodovico Canossa, évêque de Bayeux, 1516–1531,” Bulletin historique et philologique du comité des travaux historiques et scientifiques (1911), 260–301.

from clerical reform to evangelical renewal, – 159 statutes of 1518 were indeed those of a good bishop.20 He reaffirmed his predecessor’s statutes of 1515 regulating clerical residence, dress, morals, concubinage, tavern-keeping, appeals for alms (quêtes), education, and the administration of the sacraments. He particularly emphasized the education of the parish clergy and laity, requiring priests having the cure of souls to own and learn by heart a modest list of pastoral handbooks, including: Guy de Montrocher’s Manipulus curatorum, Gerson’s L’instruction des curés (Opus tripartitum), which he had just had re-printed, Artus Fillon’s Speculum curatorum (c. 1509), as well as Canossa’s own synodal statutes.21 In turn, the clergy were to ensure that the laity memorize and explicitly believe in (explicite credere) the Lord’s Prayer and Credo.22 Although frequently absent in service to the king during the following years, Canossa still continued to guide his diocese, if necessary by letter.23 While in Venice he wrote to Marguerite of Navarre, calling upon her to help him sustain the religious life of his flock.24 Had he been resident in his diocese during the 1520s, another promising experiment in episcopal reform, like Briçonnet’s at Meaux, could have evolved at Bayeux

20 Synodales consitutiones (13 April 1518) in Jacques-Paul Migne, ed., Patrologiae cursus completus . . . Series Latina, 221 vols. (Paris: Garnier frères and J.-P. Migne héritiers, 1844–1882), vol. 147, 235–240 (hereafter PL). 21 Statute 16: “. . . iniungimus singulis clericis, praecipue curatis et vicariis in ecclesiis ministrantibus, ut saepe vacent litteris, et sibi emant tractatum nuncupatum Fillon, et Maniupulum curatorum, necnon praecepta synodalia a praedecessoribus nostris edita infra duos menses proxime futuros. Et in illis se instruant sub poena excommunicationis.” Statute 23: “Item, iniungitur eisdem curatis ut habeant diligenter observare statuta synodalia tam per eundem dominum episcopum quam suos praedecessores pridem edita et promulgata; et ut quilibet eorum apud se habeat libellum nuncupatum Fillon, vel Speculum curatorum, et etiam alium librum nuper auctoritate eiusdem domini impressum, intitulatum: L’instruction des curés, eosque libellos in Kalendis exhibeant promotori eiusdem domini episcopi sub poena emendae arbitrariae.” PL 147, 238–240. 22 Statute 19: “Ex decretis sanctorum Patrum nostrorum manifestatur quod placere Deo sine fide non possumus. Et quia ad nostras devenit aures quamplurimos nostrae Bajocensis dioecesis parum in fide catholica imbutos esse, cupientes salubriter providere, unde statuimus ut de caetero singuli curati seu eorum vicarii, diebus Dominicis in pronao missarum parochialium alta et intelligibili voce proferre habeant, et distincte dicere orationem Dominicam Pater noster, et utrumque Credo, ut sic ignari, rudes, et imbecilles addiscere et retinere valeant, et explicite saltem credere non erubescant.” PL 147, 240. 23 Bourdon, “Nouvelles recherches sur Lodovico Canossa,” 297–299. 24 For example, on 1 June 1526, Canossa and Marguerite corresponded about his attempt to promote monastic reform by transferring nuns between two houses in Caen (Jourda, Répertoire, nos. 352 and 353). See further for their collaboration by letter during the 1520s: 11 September 1520 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 7); 5 May 1523 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 103), and June [1525] (Jourda, Répertoire, nos. 222 and 223).

160

chapter five – the meaux experiment i

led by Canossa. As at Meaux, it would have drawn on the dual support of a humanist-trained clergy and court favor: two essential ingredients for episcopal reform to succeed in France at that time.25 In any case, Canossa’s example points to the fact that, as early as 1520, the court, Marguerite in particular, was favoring several prelates who wished to renew religious life, serve the king, and further humanist studies. In co-opting the episcopal reform project, those prelates broke with the reformist camp of Standonck and Beda by fitting it within the royal agenda to control the Gallican church and, equally threatening, by adopting humanist biblical scholarship and pedagogy to fulfill it. From this perspective, Guillaume Briçonnet’s reform program was representative of a new direction in the pursuit of late-medieval reform, emerging just before the Reformation movement developed. Reformist prelates like Briçonnet embraced two new trends, the growing power of royal government and the pedagogical promise of the humanist learning, to effect traditional goals. Briçonnet’s Reform Program to 1521 Like his predecessors at Meaux, Jean L’Hullier (1483–1500), Jean de Pierrepont (1500–1510), and Louis Pinelle (1511–1516), as well as his school master, Josse Clichtove, and his brother Denis, bishop of SaintMalo, Briçonnet shared Canossa’s preoccupation with ameliorating the clergy.26 While these prelates also expressed concern about the laity breaking divine and canon law—statutes against clandestine marriages and the purchase of unauthorized indulgences were repeated with particular insistence—they saw such abuses, however, as but the sour fruit of the church’s wizened limbs. At root, it was the clergy that had failed its mission: because of their dereliction of duty, the people neither knew nor loved the faith enough to live better lives. All these bishops commanded their charges to use Gerson’s basic manual of instruction

25 Canossa continued to count on Marguerite’s support and dedicated to her his, De modo legendi hebraïce dialogus, (Paris, 1534), writing “Est hebraea tibi carissima lingua. [f. A2v].” See further, Richard Cooper, Litterae in tempore belli: Etudes sur les relations littéraires italo-françaises pendant les guerres d’Italie, THR 308 (Geneva: Droz, 1997). 26 For Briçonnet’s predecessors, see Michel Veissière, “La vie chrétienne dans le diocèse de Meaux entre 1493 et 1526 d’après les synodes diocésains: Continuités et innovations,” Revue d’histoire de l’Église de France 77 (1991), 71–81. I have not been able to consult Michel Veissière, “Denis Briçonnet, évêque de Saint-Malo (1513–1535),” Annales de la Société d’histoire et d’archéologie de Saint-Malo (1992), 105–114.

from clerical reform to evangelical renewal, – 161 for clerics, the Opus tripartitum. It contained, they argued, a summary of the faith containing all the necessary ingredients—a commentary on the Ten Commandments, a guide to penance, and a treatise on the art of dying—for instructing to the laity. Denis Briçonnet was therefore continuing a well-established tradition in 1518, when he ordered curates incapable of preaching to read a chapter of Gerson’s catechism during the early morning service for the servants as well as the high, parochial Mass.27 In order to accommodate this lengthy injection of teaching, Denis authorized celebrants to shorten the customary liturgy, specifying that they were not to celebrate the Mass before reading a portion of Gerson “so that the people, who need to hear such lessons will not have already left.”28 As an enticement and reward, he granted forty days pardon to the lector, twenty to auditors. He offered similar pardons to curates, schoolmasters, parents, and others willing to instruct children and the unlettered with Gerson’s manual. The bishop of Saint-Malo’s simple remedy for religious ignorance, a quid pro quo of pardon for instruction, had already been tried by his brother’s predecessors at Meaux, but it had failed miserably because of a fundamental problem: the clergy were either absent or ignorant. Like Denis, Guillaume conducted a visitation of his diocese in 1518 and found that the parish clergy was composed largely of uneducated stand-in vicars.29 Most benefice holders, who generally had some 27 Denis Briçonnet’s prefatory epistle to the clergy of his diocese, [ before 10 April 1518], to Gerson’s L’Instruction des curez, in Rice, Prefatory Epistles, no. 123, 395–399. Guillaume Briçonnet’s predecessor at Meaux, Louis Pinelle, had prescribed the same use of Gerson’s Opus tripartitum during Sunday services. See Veissière, Guillaume Briçonnet, 130–131. With the addition of Canossa noted above, it is clear that reformist bishops relied heavily on Gerson’s pastoral handbook, for Denis Briçonnet’s detailed instructions closely follow those outlined in 1508 by François de Rohan, archbishop of Lyon and bishop of Angers. See Rohan’s preface, dated Paris, 20 February 1507 [1508 n.s.], to the edition he was publishing: Jean Gerson, L’instruction des curez (Opus tripartitum) [Lyon?, 1508]. BM Lyon Rés. Inc., 1508, 586. 28 “. . . affin que par leur messe le peuple qui doyt ouir ladicte lecture ne s’envoye,” Rice, Prefatory Epistles, no. 123, 398. 29 The sources detailing Briçonnet’s reforming efforts 1518–1520 are his synodal sermons of 1519 and, 1520, as well as a retrospective account of his efforts that prefaces his 1526 synodal statutes. For the texts of his 1519 and 1520 synodal sermons, see Michel Veissière, “Duo sermones synodales Guillermi Briçonnet, Meldensis Episocopi (1519 et 1520),” Humanistica Lovaniensia: Journal of Neo-Latin Studies 27 (1978), 86–127; and French translations of these in Henri Tardif and Michel Veissière, “Un discours synodal de Guillaume Briçonnet, évêque de Meaux (13 octobre 1519),” Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 71 (1976), 91–108, and idem, “Un autre discours synodal de Guillaume Briçonnet, évêque de Meaux (octobre 1520),” Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 60 (1976), 419–445. For the 1526 summary, see Dom Michael Chrétien

162

chapter five – the meaux experiment i

university education, spent their time far from their parishes, often in order to teach or study in Paris. He discovered that as a result no part of his diocese enjoyed sustained preaching or instruction. For this reason, the Franciscans of Meaux had recently been given permission to preach throughout the diocese. But as he learned, these friars privileged the richer parishes where they breezed in preaching tired, old sermons just long enough to collect alms. Some rural parishes had not been graced with so much as a country curate’s simple homily in seven to ten years.30 Between 1518 and 1521, Guillaume sought to force prebend-holders to reside in their parishes. It is surprising that he should have thought he could make headway, for he was himself a former pluralist and absentee prelate well acquainted with the loopholes in canon law through which negligent priests escaped their pastoral duties. When reprimanding non-resident priests, who justified their absence as necessary to fulfill their more important responsibilities as courtiers, magistrates, students, and professors, Briçonnet had to anticipate countercharges of hypocrisy: he had previously neglected his flocks for these same reasons.31 He preempted critique by claiming that a ‘clarion call’ from Scripture had awoken his conscience with a stinging rebuke, rousing him to

Toussaints Du Plessis, Histoire de l’église de Meaux: avec des notes ou dissertations; et les pièces justificatives, 2 vols. (Paris: Julien-Michel Gandouin, 1731), 2, 565–567. For a detailed presentation of these early visitations and synods, see Veissière, Guillaume Briçonnet, 127–141, 157–175. 30 “Unde anno millesimo quingentesimo decimo octavo Roma rediens totam Diocesim visitans in quaque parochia sollicite admodum a decanis, parochialibus Sacerdotibus, Vicariis, Matriculariis, aliisque primoribus parochiarum sciscitatus est, quis praedicasset illis verbum Dei, quot praedicationibus, quali doctrina, vita aut moribus essent. Omnium autem responsa invenit totius Dioecesis hanc praedicationum Provinciam a multis ante praedecessoribus demandatam esse Fratribus minoribus Conventus Meldensis, qui raras admodum et infrequentes praedicationes facerent, easque potissimum tempore quaestarum, quas ut possent celerius colligere, uno eodemque die unus Praedicator quatuor aut quinque parochias eundem sermonem repetens, non ut animas sed se ipsos alerent, visitaret, et eas tantum, quae insignes essent, ex quibus inde uberior quaestus accederet. Hinc in Conventum suum quaestis onusti se recipientes, non prius redibant, quam aliud quaestarum tempus se offerret, ita ut Quaestores, non Praedicatores viderentur; minutas autem et tenues parochias septem, octo, novem et decem annis destitutas fuisse alimento et populo Verbi Dei non sine animi dolore intellexit.” Toussaints Du Plessis, Histoire de l’église de Meaux 2, 565. 31 “Sunt et plaerique velamen erroris afferentes, quod longe gravioribus (ut asserunt) negociis invigilent, a principibus asciti, subselliis iudicum ascripti, laurea palaestrica donati, aut gymnasticis exercitiis continendis occupati. Pudet et alia dicere, quae nonnullos distineant.” 1519 synodal sermon, a theme he reiterated in 1520, Veissière, “Duo sermones synodales Guillermi Briçonnet,” 104 and 122.

from clerical reform to evangelical renewal, – 163 return to pasturing his flock. Yet, he had already reformed the abbey of Saint-Germain-des-Prés in 1508, and then taken reformist measures at Lodève, his previous see. Briçonnet’s efforts at Meaux from 1518 to 1520 thus reflected a regenerated commitment to the ideal of episcopal reform after having spent several years serving the crown.32 Since thundering at his recalcitrant clergy was proving fruitless, to fill the void in religious instruction, Briçonnet bypassed the broken benefice system and organized the diocese’s parishes into thirty-two preaching circuits, which he sought to staff with able clerics. In 1518, he invited the Franciscans to minister regularly in several circuits in exchange for being permitted to solicit alms. He attempted to supply the other stations with preachers at his own expense. Little information survives about whom he hired or how well the system worked before the Fabrists arrived in 1521. In February 1519, Pierre Richard, a wellknown scholar at Paris, praised Briçonnet for engaging well-trained preachers from the university: Today, secular clergymen, the best and the brightest ( flores et sidera fulgentia) of the University of Paris, hasten from town to town and castle to castle, dispersing the gospel throughout your diocese, not seeking their own profit but that of Jesus Christ.33

Leaving aside his slighting of the Franciscans, it is remarkable that Briçonnet won praise for hiring university students so soon after helping to negotiate the Concordat of Bologna, whose registration the Paris faculties had vigorously opposed precisely because it undermined

32 “Quoniammodo potero et ego, commilitiones amantissimi, tanti sanguinis innoxius haberi; qui in annos deum ludere, et rem actam agere videar? Increbuit auribus meis classicum buccinae tremendi iudicis, oves de manu speculatoris requirentis et interminantis . . .,” Veissière, “Duo sermones synodales Guillermi Briçonnet,” 97. Among those who likely influenced Briçonnet’s sense of pastoral calling, Veissière cites his university teachers Louis Pinelle and Josse Clichtove as well as the example of Jacopo Sadoleto, Gian Matteo Giberti, and the Oratory of Divine Love during his time in Italy. See Veissière, Guillaume Briçonnet, 115–117; idem, “Guillaume Briçonnet, évêque de Meaux et la réforme de son clergé,” Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 84 (1989), 665–666. 33 “O quam felices, o quam beatae sunt illae oves Meldenses quae talem ac tantum meruerunt habere pastorem! Nunc, nunc tui evangelistae saeculares universitatis Parisiensis, flores et sidera fulgentia, de oppido in oppidum per tuam dioecesim currunt et discurrunt, et per castella evangelizantes et curantes ubique assistunt, non quaerentes quae sua sunt, sed quae Iesu Christi . . .,” dedicatory epistle, dated 18 February 1518 [1519 n.s.], to Doctrinale sanctae ac providae vitae. For this preface and Richard’s distinguished career as a theologian and prolific author, see Michel Veissière, “Une dédicace de Pierre Richard à Guillaume Briçonnet (1519),” BHR 49 (1987), 121–128; 127–128.

164

chapter five – the meaux experiment i

university graduates access to prime benefices.34 Richard’s praise may have reflected an ideal rather than described reality, for in both 1519 and 1520 Briçonnet found his clergy still sadly wanting. By 1521, Briçonnet had created a tier of ministers above the parish priests. His circuit preachers were evidently meant to shoulder the brunt of religious instruction, but it is not clear how they were to complement the regular clergy over the long term. He does not say, for example, whether the preachers would also be responsible for hearing confession and administering the sacraments, since he had found that most curates were non-resident and their vicars were scarcely capable of performing the sacraments. Despite having concentrated pastoral responsibility on an elite of thirty-two clerics, both tiers would seem to have been understaffed by qualified personnel. At the end of 1520, Briçonnet again assessed the abilities of all the vicars and priests in the diocese. He found only fourteen “capable of preaching the gospel” and forty-three wholly incapable of even properly administering the sacraments. Between these extremes was a mediocre crowd, divided into two groups: sixty worthy of a year’s probation and “the rest a little learned” (that is, capable of performing the sacraments), but incapable of preaching. The forty-three wholly incapable he banned from performing the sacraments and demanded replacements from the responsible benefice-holders. The sixty were given a reprieve until the next synod to prove their worth, at which time many failed and were dismissed.35 These results indicate that, on the eve of the Fabrists’ arrival, a large portion of the parish clergy could barely perform the sacraments properly, let alone expound the basic tenets of the faith. There were not even

34

On the university’s resistance to the Concordat, see Farge, Orthodoxy, 110–114. Presumably, the remaining priests who were “a little learned” were permitted to administer the sacraments but not licensed to preach. “Et cum absentes hujusmodi Rectores tenentur in qualibet Synodo annuatim Vicarium unum aut plures pro regimine et cura animarum illi praesentare, idcirco anno millesimo quingentesimo vicesimo visitans dictam suam Diocesim examinavit omnes singulos Vicarios, et alios sacerdotes totius Diocesis, ut probaret, qui essent capaces Evangelicae praedicationis, et cum tantum quatuordecim invenisset, quinquaginta tres notavit insufficientes, sexaginta tolerabiles ad annum, alios mediocriter doctos, incapaces tamen praedicandi Verbi Evangelici. Id autem in sua Synodo eodem anno referens, insufficientes ejecit ab omnimoda Sacramentorum administratione; tolerabiles remisit usque ad Synodum proximam, admonens Rectores infra terminum sancti Martini tunc illis datum praesentare alios loco insufficientium, quod factum est. Plerique etiam anno sequenti qui tolerabiles fuerunt adjudicati, ejecti fuerunt; alii quia eo anno profecissent, relicti. Nichil tamen est iis annis immutatum super Stationibus et Praedicatoribus in illis ordinatis.” Toussaints Du Plessis, Histoire de l’église de Meaux, 2, 565. 35

from clerical reform to evangelical renewal, – 165 enough fully capable preachers, a mere fourteen, to cover half of the thirty-two preaching circuits. Before 1521, Briçonnet had concentrated chiefly on ameliorating the secular clergy rather than the regular clergy, since the seculars were, in his opinion, the true intermediaries between the people and God.36 Certainly, the spiritual battle of monks is a great and marvelous thing, but the one who compares this with the priestly office rightly administered will find that there is the same difference between them as between a private citizen and a king, since the ministrations of priests serve the common good through charity and have greater efficacy in heaven.37

Nevertheless, he also took measures to ameliorate both monastic communities as well as the moral life of the laity.38 More than his clerical reforms, which were bogged down in the courts,39 his reform of monastic houses garnered significant support from the royal court, the Parlement of Paris, and the laity of Meaux. In 1518, he supervised the restoration of two elite Benedictine convents in his diocese, Farmoutiers and Jouarre. Francis I and Marguerite’s half-sister, Madeleine d’Orléans, had had been made abbess of both successively in 1511 and 1515. Evidently, the royals considered the reform of religious houses as Briçonnet’s

36 “Et recte ait [Paulus] ferenda esse infirmiora vasa domini, quia ovium peccata piis gemitibus et suspiriis abluere non fuerit alienum a pastoribus, qui solidiora et aurea vasa sunt effecti; unde inter vestibulum et altare, [Joel 2:17], quasi mediastimi [sic for mediastini ], iram dei fusis lachrymis temperant deique bonitatem peccatis ovium subasperatam leniunt, ac tanquam aries muro iusticiae divinae admotus, misericordi pietati piam vim afferunt.” Veissière, “Duo sermones synodales Guillermi Briçonnet,” 111. 37 “Magnus certe et admirandum monachorum certamen, verum qui illud bene administrato sacerdotio conferat, inter utrumque tam interesse comperiet, quam inter privatum et regem, quod pastorale officium charitate in commune transeat, et altius coelis efficiatur.” Veissière, “Duo sermones synodales Guillermi Briçonnet,” 96; for his critique of the rivalry of the mendicant and monastic orders, see especially 118. 38 Veissière, Guillaume Briçonnet, 143–155. 39 Briçonnet’s secretary, Lermitte, recounted the legal maneuvers recalcitrant clerics employed to block his reforms, “Idcirco attendens Curatos et rectores huic officio praedicationis maxime vacare debere, paucos tamen in parochialibus locis, sed fere omnes Parisiis residentes esse, aegre ferens dictus Reverendus tot desertores militiae Christianae, qui alias capaces essent alendo gregi, invenire, in proxima Synodo anno millesimo quingentesimo decimo nono Stationibus ut anno priore assignatis Praedicatoribus, ordinavit omnes et singulos Curatos iuxta iuris formam residere, curaeque ovium intendere, in quos cum esset aliquot diebus processum, nonnulli appellationis remedio a notorio abusu ad Curiam Parlamenti, alii ad Metropolitanum, alii remedio quaerimoniae se tutantes, dictum Reverendum innumeris litium anfractibus vexavere, . . .” cited in Toussaints Du Plessis, Histoire de l’église de Meaux, 2, 566.

166

chapter five – the meaux experiment i

special bailiwick.40 That same year, they also chose Briçonnet as one of three bishops to oversee the reform of the abbey of Almenèches (near Argentan in the duchy of Alençon), whose reformation Marguerite was sponsoring.41 Over the next years Briçonnet’s partnership with the court in reforming the regular clergy continued. In response to Marguerite’s petition, Leo X commissioned Briçonnet and Frales de Coulbeuf, abbot of Saint-André-en-Gouffern (Calvados), to reform the canons of Sées in the diocese of Alençon. The chapter was provided with a new constitution, which Francis I ratified in October 1522.42 The hospitals and leprosariums of Briçonnet’s diocese were also in disorder. In 1520, with the combined help of local notables and the Parlement of Paris, he forced the Trinitarians to withdraw from the Hôtel-Dieu of Meaux.43 They had usurped the foundation’s revenues for their own use, neglecting the poor whom they were supposed to serve. After expelling them, Briçonnet reestablished the hôtel-dieu on sounder financial and administrative footing.44 Besides their interest in reforming the town hospital, the people of Meaux had a lively interest in redressing the fiscal abuses of the clergy. Though there is little direct evidence for Briçonnet intervening on this front, the laity’s concerns echo in his retelling of the excuses offered by priests for non-residence. Absentee clerics, he relates, complained that the people refused to pay their tithes and that offerings had recently 40 After negotiating the Concordat, the royal government continued to call on Briçonnet’s administrative services as well. In 1518, the court asked him to represent the king at the regional Estates of Normandy in order to secure a grant from the clergy. See below and Veissière, Guillaume Briçonnet, 137. 41 Veissière, Guillaume Briçonnet, 153. On Marguerite and the court’s support for the reform of religious houses from 1515 to the early 1520s, see chapter 3. 42 Saulnier 1977, 451. 43 The parlement was represented by André Verjus, who subsequently proved to be a staunch opponent of the king’s domestic and ecclesiastical policy as well as the ‘heretics’ supported by his sister. 44 The reform of the hôtel-dieu required sustained effort from 9 February 1519 [1520 n.s.] to 12 November 1520. Guillaume Briçonnet, Jean Bataille, avocat du Roy in the bailliage of Meaux, the dean of the chapter of Meaux, as well as the governors, leaders and top bourgeois of the town and market (a separate legal entity) all collaborated. In the end, granted Briçonnet control of the hospital and its funds in order to sustain poor relief. See Toussaints Du Plessis, Histoire de l’église de Meaux, 2, 274–276, doc. no. DVVII, “Ex Tabular. Monast. SS. Trinitatis Meldensis.” Henry Heller has found that lay giving substantially increased to the Hôtel-Dieu of Meaux, even though charitable giving in general was declining during the particularly dire war years following 1522, a fact which exhibits strong popular support for these reforms. See Heller, “Famine, Revolt and Heresy at Meaux,” 144–145.

from clerical reform to evangelical renewal, – 167 diminished.45 Lay discontent with the clergy had evidently started well before Fabrist or Lutheran criticisms hit Meaux, contributing to the erosion of the clergy’s revenues. By 1520, the clergy’s perception of decreasing revenues was very likely accurate, even if diminishing lay generosity was not the sole cause: the king was beginning to siphon off ecclesiastical funds into the royal fisc. In 1517, Briçonnet helped levy the first ever royal tenth (décime) on church revenues in his diocese.46 Fifty-six more tenths were to be exacted during Francis’s reign.47 A new pressure from the crown on parish receipts had begun, which probably caused resentment along the fiscal food-chain down through the various levels of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, whose members were receiving lower net returns, to the parishioners at the bottom who paid the ever more assiduously exacted church taxes. Clerics further complained that lay people were anticlerical, profane, and ignorant. To all this Briçonnet responded harshly: Why do we complain that our rights are violated, that everyone insults the clergy, or that church law and all things sacred are profaned? Why should we? We have merited it!48

In his analysis, if the clergy were as concerned about maintaining the people’s faith as they were about preserving their incomes, the people’s charity would not have diminished.49 Briçonnet’s response to the clergy went to the central problem and ultimate target of his reform: the turmoil of lay religious life. His rhetoric expressed the crisis in extreme terms: “religion is in exile,” “the church and flock are miserably ruined.”50 Yet, he said, there was hope. Though the church was as dry and lifeless as earthenware jar, there was still a

45

Veissière, “Duo sermones synodales Guillermi Briçonnet,” 97, 126. “Les besoins de l’État donnèrent lieu sous le même règne [Francis I] à l’imposition de Décimes: elles furent payées pour la première fois dans le Diocèse de Meaux en 1517, & se montrent à sept mille livres.” Toussaints Du Plessis, Histoire de l’église de Meaux, 1, 324–325. 47 Knecht, Renaissance Warrior, 187. 48 “Quid ingemimus libertates nostras violari, ecclesiasticos omnes probro haberi, iura ecclesiastica sacraque omnia prophanari. Quidni? Talia meremur.” Veissière, “Duo sermones synodales Guillermi Briçonnet,” 99–100. 49 Veissière, “Duo sermones synodales Guillermi Briçonnet,” 126. 50 Veissière, “Duo sermones synodales Guillermi Briçonnet,” 96, 108, 118–119. 46

168

chapter five – the meaux experiment i

seed of life: “Jesus will always enliven some members of the church body.”51 Briçonnet did seek to encourage lay piety directly, and his measures in this direction were, like his brother’s pardons at Saint-Malo, traditional. Having established good relations with the pope during the Concordat negotiations, Guillaume secured a liberal series of indulgences for participating in the rites of the church and supporting its foundations.52 While trying to increase devotion with indulgences—a measure which would also address the recent decline in lay giving—he followed this carrot with a stick, issuing injunctions against profaning holy days. This seems to be the sum of his direct approach to the laity. These measures attempted to implement his fervent desire to nourish the laity by word, sacrament, and example, a goal he aimed to fulfill by providing effective pastors, whose ministry would stimulate the laity’s love of God and the church: “Only one food revives the soul: the love of God.”53 Simultaneously, as an accomplished administrator, he was addressing the systemic problems of his diocese: absenteeism, corrupt foundations, decreasing donations, and even his clergy’s legal problems.54 By the end of 1520, despite Briçonnet’s zeal, the results of three years’ effort were minimal. Successive measures had failed to make beneficeholders either reside in their parishes themselves or supply effective vicars. The principal conduit for educating the laity was effectively blocked. Briçonnet had implemented an innovative program of circuit

51 When discussing the dismal state of the church, Briçonnet asserted that there would always be some part preserved: “Exsiccatus est vertex Carmeli [Amos 1:2], et aruit velut testa virtus ecclesiae. Cuius licet matrix sterilis et ubera arentia [Hosea 9:14], manet tamen super semen vivificum, quo benignitate dei nunquam destituimur. Alias Sodomam et Gomorram scelere vinceremus, superbono IESV ad consummationem usque seculi in nonnulla membra corporis ecclesiae (cuius caput est) semper influente.” Veissière, “Duo sermones synodales Guillermi Briçonnet,” 118–119. 52 On indulgences, see Veissière, Guillaume Briçonnet, 121–127. For Briçonnet’s 11 August 1520 ‘mandements’ against public dancing and plays, “choreas publicas . . . sive, ut vulgariter dicunt Eschafault,” on Sunday and the Assumption of the Virgin, which were confirmed by royal lettres patentes and published 7 January 1521, see Toussaints Du Plessis, Histoire de l’église de Meaux, 1, 326; 2, no. 8, 555–556. 53 “. . . sed uno tantum alimento spiritus reficitur. Id unum amor dei est.” Veissière, “Duo sermones synodales Guillermi Briçonnet,” 102. 54 At the end of his 1520 synodal sermon, Briçonnet promised to set up a sort of legal clearing house which would take over pursuit of all suits brought by the clergy of his diocese in order to keep them out of the courts and retain them in their parishes. Veissière, “Duo sermones synodales Guillermi Briçonnet,” 126.

from clerical reform to evangelical renewal, – 169 preachers to bypass this obstacle, but he had not yet been able to supply it with personnel capable of reaching the laity. So too, the literature he had published during these years was intended for the secular and regular clergy, but apart from their effective ministrations it would have little effect on the laity.55 Even if his processor Pinelle’s statute requiring parish priests to read Gerson’s Instruction des curés to their congregations were still in force, the evidence indicates that before 1521 Briçonnet had not yet taken an active interest in procuring or promoting vernacular literature for ministering directly to the laity. Thus, prior to the arrival of Lefèvre and his disciples, Briçonnet had cleared the ground of many obstructions and designed an efficient labor system for instructing the laity, but the seed had yet to be planted let alone the crop harvested. In 1521 he called new workers, and they brought new seed.

Evangelical Renewal, 1521–1523 Lefèvre d’Étaples and his disciples refocused Briçonnet’s program from the clergy to the laity. While fulfilling his need for more able clerics to staff his preaching circuits, they brought a new vision of ‘evangelizing’ the people by giving them direct access to the Scriptures in the vernacular and clear instruction based on it. The innovative elements of this effort—providing the laity with Lefèvre’s new French translations of the New Testament and Psalms, conducting Bible studies for the lay groups, as well as publishing a book of model expository sermons on the Sunday lectionary readings for ministers—took some time to materialize. Before we can consider here and in the next chapter how their emphasis on educating the laity fit into and transformed Briçonnet’s 55 In addition to his translation of the first part of Lefèvre’s edition of Jordan’s Contemplationes Idiotae (1519) for the use of the nuns of Jouarre, Briçonnet published a new missal for the diocese (1518). His Latin synodal sermons of 1519 and 1520 were printed in 1520 and 1522 respectively. 1520 or 1521 saw a new Heures de Meaux, printed for Jean de Brie at Paris (the Easter table starts with 1521), whose sponsorship is unclear. Some of its typographical material would appear four years later in Simon Du Bois’ earliest imprints. See Moreau 3, no. 128, 81: “Jean de Brie (Simon du Bois?) S.d. [almanac 1521–1530].” This typographical evidence is too tenuous to support any claim that Du Bois, the most important printer of clandestine evangelical literature from 1525 to 1534, and the Meaux reformers, whose members later collaborated with Du Bois, were connected before 1525.

170

chapter five – the meaux experiment i

predating clerical reform, we need to clarify the origins and goals of their program. Had the Fabrist already formulated this program before arriving in Meaux? As we have seen in chapter 4, Glareanus interpreted Lefèvre’s move to Meaux as a flight from Paris in the wake of the Sorbonne’s condemnation of Luther. In 1519 and 1520, controversy over Lefèvre’s treatises on Mary Magdalene, St. Anne, and Christ’s three-day descent to the dead had already driven him into intellectual and physical exile. That he ended up at Meaux shortly after the condemnation of Luther in April 1521 would seem to corroborate Glareanus’s assertion. Although Lefèvre was aware of Briçonnet’s clerical efforts from the beginning— indeed, in April 1519 he thought it newsworthy enough to relate it to Beatus Rhenanus, through whom he sent greetings to German scholars including Luther56—there is, nevertheless, no evidence that he and his disciples made any move to join in or aid the Meaux reform directly until after the Luther condemnation forced him to flee. His choice of Meaux as a haven seems obvious, since Guillaume Briçonnet had been his chief patron over the past decade and a half. In exchanging lodging at Briçonnet’s abbey of Saint-Germain-des-Prés in Paris for directorship of a lepers’ hospital in Meaux (the position given to him upon arrival), Lefèvre might seem to have been searching for a ‘safer’ spot under the wing of his patron, rather than choosing to answer the dire need of the bishop’s floundering clerical reform program. His flight from Paris and new title, however, do little to explain Lefèvre’s subsequent activities or the decision of his disciples to join him at Meaux. By 1521, given their previous biblical studies, their high regard for German Christian humanists and reformers, and their sense that a new evangelical dawn was breaking, the Fabrists had decided, beyond fleeing persecution at Paris, to give voice to their understanding of the gospel in a new way. Briçonnet’s need provided a suitable opportunity. A member of the group, Jean Le Comte de La Croix (1500–1572), writing many years later in the clear hindsight of his commitment to the Protestant cause, claimed as much in his memoirs:

56 “Nam pridem libris Philonis donavi R.D. meum Episcopum Meldensem, qui nunc foris agit in dioecesi sua.” Herminjard 1, no. 20, 42–45, 43.

from clerical reform to evangelical renewal, – 171 Jacques Lefèvre and four of his friends and disciples withdrew to Meaux, in Brie, to be far away and safe and to consider the best way to plant the holy doctrine of the gospel that God had given them the grace to know.57

Le Comte claimed the Fabrists had a deliberate evangelizing purpose in turning to Meaux. His recollection is corroborated by their initial activities at Meaux. To meet the bishop’s need for effective instruction of the laity, the Fabrists responded with enthusiasm and soon a focused, evangelical program. Lefèvre and his disciples’ correspondence from their first three years at Meaux (1521–1523) is not extant. While this is a severe loss, their dedicatory epistles to the works they published in those years clearly testify to a rapid evolution in their reforming agenda and its new ambitious goals. In them, they declared their intention to retool their Latinate, biblical scholarship in order to meet the laity’s need for instruction in the vernacular. In a dedicatory epistle of November 1521 addressed to Antoine Ardillon, abbot of Fontaine-le-Comte, Lefèvre announced that he and his colleagues were striving in Meaux to make the Scriptures more accessible. The author of the work entitled Apologia heremitarum, Pierre de Lille, one of Ardillon’s monks, had recently asked Lefèvre what should be the focus of his studies. Instead of recommending any of the many guides to monastic and clerical life he and his colleagues had edited over the past decade, Lefèvre responded that Pierre should concentrate simply on the Scriptures, announcing that he and his colleagues were then hard at work on a commentary on the Gospels intended to aid people in reading the Bible. The first section on Matthew was almost through the press, he announced, asking Ardillon and his brothers to pray that this work would further the glory of God and build up piety.58

57 “Jacques Lefèvre et quatre de ses amis et disciples, s’étant retirés à Meaux, en Brie, pour être à part et en sûreté et pour délibérer touchant la meilleure manière de provigner la sainte doctrine de l’Évangile que Dieu leur avait fait la grâce de connaître.” This passage from Jean Le Comte’s journal is quoted in a manuscript entitled Genealogia et fata de la famille Le Comte, which is cited by Ed. Besson in “Jean Lecomte de la Croix: Un réformateur peu connu,” Berner Taschenbuch 26 (1877), 139–168; 145. 58 Guy Bedouelle discovered this important preface and relates that Pierre de Lille, anchorite, and Antoine Ardillon, abbot of Fontaine-le-Compte, were members of a circle of humanists near Poitiers. Rabelais spent some time with them and mentions them in his Tiers livre. See, Bedouelle, Lefèvre d’Étaples, 100–102 and 102 for Lefèvre’s preface to Pierre de Lille, Apologia Heremitarum Petri Dellila, [s.n., c. December 1521], fol. A1v.

172

chapter five – the meaux experiment i

The following spring of 1522, Lefèvre published his Introductory commentaries on the Gospels (Commentarii initiatorii in quatuor Evangelia) at Meaux with a programmatic preface to the reader.59 While this Latin work could only be read by the learned, Lefèvre articulated a broad vision of the urgent need to spread the gospel to everyone.60 Five biblical verses printed on the title page—each one a forceful injunction—announced the missionary intent of the work. Collectively they enjoin preaching of the gospel so that through faith believers throughout the world would be made just and live.61 Lefèvre’s preface expresses an inveterate optimist’s hope for a bright future, for an imminent renewal of the church. Although he invokes the church’s dark past, marred as it was by ignorance, vice, and false doctrine, characteristically he does so to prove the urgent need for renewal, not to point an accusing finger. He frames his analysis of the state of the church and plans for its amelioration with reference to the guiding principle of his thought: Christ is the author, sum, and goal of Christian life. Belief in the message of the gospel will not only confer salvation in the hereafter but also bring peace on earth. All bishops, the supreme pontiff, kings, magistrates, and even the laity are responsible for making this message known. Commitment to this duty is the standard by which they should be judged worthy or not of their calling. By their efforts to inculcate the gospel, he promises, they will help sinners to new life by putting them on the path to a threefold mystical ascent: the purgation of their will, illumination of their understanding, and perfection of their love. In Lefèvre’s view, the church was failing to preach this gospel.62 It was just then rebounding from a long fall, which had started with the reign

59 Rice, Prefatory Epistles, no. 134, 434–442. The work was published at Meaux before Easter on a press set up by Simon de Colines, the Fabrists’ usual printer, who normally worked out of his shop in Paris. 60 “Et hoc sit cunctis unicum studium, solatium, desiderium, scire evangelium, sequi evangelium ubique promovere evangelium.” Rice, Prefatory Epistles, no. 134, 435. 61 The five verses are: “Vidi alterum angelum volantem per medium caelum habentem evangelium aeternum” (Ap. 14:6–7); “Praedicabitur hoc evangelium regni in universo orbe, in testimonium omnibus gentibus” (Mt. 24:14); “Euntes in mundum universum praedicate evangelium omni creaturae” (Mk. 16:15); “Evangelizo vobis gaudium magnum quod erit omni populo” (Lk. 2:10); “Non enim erubesco evangelium Christi. Virtus enim Dei est in salutem omni credenti, Iudaeo primum et Graeco. Iustitia enim Dei in eo revelatur ex fide in fidem, sicut scriptum est, Iustus autem ex fide vivet.” (Rm. 1:16–17). Rice, Prefatory Epistles, no. 134, 434. 62 Rice, Prefatory Epistles, no. 134, 437–438.

from clerical reform to evangelical renewal, – 173 of Constantine.63 The nadir, however, had been passed. Church renewal had begun with the revival of the study of biblical languages (alluding to humanist Latin, Greek, and Hebrew studies) as well as the beginnings of a triumphal spread of the gospel to new lands throughout the globe (alluding to the recent voyages of the Portuguese and Spanish). In this thumbnail-sketch of ecclesiastical history, Lefèvre ventured a far-reaching implicit critique of the militant church: it had allowed the gospel light to dim and the rites of the church (cultus) to become impure. For this reason, he insisted that pontiffs, kings, and all authorities should ensure that worship, piety, and the faith be restored in strict accordance with the gospel.64 When speaking about bishops and the pope, who have the highest responsibility for spreading the gospel, he stresses that only those with an “everlasting, incorruptible, and spiritual love of Christ and the gospel,” should be made—and implicitly can rightly be called—true prelates.65 Yet, he never explicitly says that it was worldly bishops or the popes who were responsible for corrupting the cult and ecclesiastical hierarchy. For Lefèvre such diagnoses were beside the point. He concentrated on his main goal: administering the cure by convincing authorities to return the church to its pristine state when the

63 Again, Lefèvre places his assessment of the decline of the church within the great hope of the spread of the gospel: “Quam fidei amplitudinem, quem puritatis cultum redeunte evangelii luce nobis quoque annuat ille qui est super omnia benedictus. Redeunte inquam evangelii luce quae sese tandem mundo rursum hac tempestate insinuat, qua plerique divina luce illustrati sunt, adeo ut praeter alia multa a tempore Constantini, quo primitiva illa quae paulatim declinabat desiit ecclesia, non fuerit maior linguarum cognitio, non maior orbis detectio, non ad longinquiora terrarum spatia quam temporibus istis nominis Christi propagatio.” Rice, Prefatory Epistles, no. 134, 437–438. 64 “Proinde eo conatus, vigor nervique omnes, tum pontificum tum regum et potentatuum omnium contendere debent, ut conservent illum sicubi adest et instaurent sicubi labefactatus est; nam in eo solo nobis vitam assequendi aeternam spes relicta est. Agite igitur pontifices, agite reges, agite generosa pectora; ubivis gentium expergiscimini ad evangelii lucem, ad verum Dei lumen, respirate ad vitam, eliminate quicquid huic puro obest officitque cultui. . . . Haec unica regula vitae aeternae magistra est; cetera quibus non adlucet verbum Dei quam non necessaria sunt, tam nimirum superflua. Neque ad puritatem cultus, pietatis integritatemque fidei quod huiusmodi est, evangelio adnumerandum est ut neque creatura Deo.” Rice, Prefatory Epistles, no. 134, 436. 65 “In qua [evangeliae luce] primas ac summas parteis tenere debent pontifices, et maxime omnium qui inter eos in sacris visibiliter peragendis functionibus primus, summus maximusque appellatur; non enim nisi ab illo immortali, incorrupto spiritualique Christi evangeliique amore talis quisquam appellari potest.” Rice, Prefatory Epistles, no. 134, 435.

174

chapter five – the meaux experiment i

gospel was the sole foundation of preaching and the true cult.66 Thus would religious practice conform to God’s will, eliminating “whatever thwarts and obstructs pure worship.”67 Lefèvre’s assessment of the church in his day was shaped both by his critical reflection on its history as well as by his expectation that the course of human affairs would proceed through divinely ordained stages to its appointed end. He interpreted the political events and scholarly advances of the last few generations as signs that a new era had commenced. During 1521–1523, Lefèvre and his disciples announced two goals: to make the gospel more accessible and to put their scholarship in the service of Briçonnet’s episcopal reform. This program could serve as a model for a national, even international reform. At this time, Lefèvre’s disciple, Gérard Roussel, publicized the need for effective prelates in his preface to a new translation of Aristotle’s Magna moralia (Paris, September 1522). He encouraged François Bohier, who was just beginning his ecclesiastical career, to emulate his uncle Guillaume Briçonnet and thereby become a learned and pious prelate like Saint Paul.68 While the Fabrists hoped that bishops and secular authorities would take up their cause—as we shall see shortly, their hopes rested on the court—their immediate task was to produce grounding texts for their program. To give the laity direct access to the gospel, they published the first installments of their French translation of the Bible in quick succession: the Gospels in June 1523, the Acts through Revelation in November 1523, and the Psalms in February 1524.69

66 “Et utinam credendi forma a primaeva illa peteretur ecclesia quae tot martyres Christo consecravit, quae nullam regulam praeter evangelium novit, quae nullum denique scopum praeter Christum habuit et nulli cultum praeterquam uni trinoque Deo impendit. Sane si ad hunc morem viveremus, floreret nunc ut et tunc floruit aeternum Christi evangelium.” Rice, Prefatory Epistles, no. 134, 437. 67 “. . . quicquid huic puro obest officitque cultui.” Rice, Prefatory Epistles, no. 134, 436. A full understanding of Lefèvre’s critique of the church would have to be teased out of his commentaries. Henry Heller has argued that Lefèvre’s theological positions grew closer to those of Protestant reformers, in part, under their influence, as exhibited in his Commentary on the Catholic Epistles (1524) and Epistles and Gospels (1525). So too, as seen in chapter 4, his ecclesiological views were developing in this direction, but a full assessment has yet to be made. See Heller, “The Evangelicism of Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples: 1525.” 68 See Roussel’s dedicatory epistle to François Bohier, in Rice, Prefatory Epistles, no. 136, 445–449; 448. 69 Though the prefaces are signed by Lefèvre, it is clear that his disciples aided him.

from clerical reform to evangelical renewal, – 175 When and why did the Meaux group decided to translate the Bible? The answers to these questions are central for understanding the evolution of their vision of evangelical renewal, since giving the Scriptures to the people in the vernacular was a monumental step: it broke with hundreds of years of tradition and struck at the established rule that the Bible be read in Latin and interpreted only by the clergy and scholars. Lefèvre had been writing Latin commentaries on the parts of the Bible and publishing devotional works since 1509, and Briçonnet had been attempting to enliven lay religion since 1518, yet neither seems to have felt the need for vernacular Scriptures before the winter of 1522–1523, when Briçonnet explicitly mentioned such a need in his letters to Marguerite. Their correspondence points to the practical pastoral concerns that prompted them to break with tradition. From his first letters to Marguerite onward, Briçonnet quoted the Bible frequently, always from the Vulgate. Although Marguerite did not know Latin well, only rarely did he render a passage into French as part of his exposition. By January 1523, we find Briçonnet struggling to answer Marguerite’s questions about the meaning of key biblical verses. Noting that the Vulgate text was not always reliable, Briçonnet was forced to call on Lefèvre and his disciples for explanations based on their knowledge of Greek and Hebrew original.70 After the publication of Lefèvre’s New Testament and Psalms translations, Briçonnet often cited Scripture in parallel, first in Latin and then in French. Briçonnet and the Meaux group had come to recognize that the errors and inaccessibility of the Latin Vulgate posed serious obstacles to educating the laity. In January 1523, Briçonnet was happy to inform Marguerite that Lefèvre’s project to translate the Scriptures was underway. It received her hearty endorsement. Later that year, when justifying the publication of his controversial vernacular translation, Lefèvre defied his critics by

70 Alluding to Lefèvre d’Étaples, François Vatable, and Gérard Roussel, he wrote: “Madame, sy ne congnoissois les grandes graces qu’il a pleu à Dieu donner à trois pauvres mendians d’esperit qui sont icy en vostre hermitaige, je dirois la presumption estre grande de cuider satisfaire à vostre desir de mendicité insatiable, vous offrant estre le promoteur et scribe soubz eulx sur les difficultéz que nostre Seigneur vous donneroit mendier. . . . Et saichant les graces qu’il vous a données et que ayant telle opportunité desdits trois personnaiges qui ont l’intelligence hebrahicque et grecque, dont se peuvent esclarcir plusieurs tenebres qui sont par maulvaises translacions en l’Escripture Saincte, me jugeray vous tenir propos duquel vous excusez.” 16 January [1523], Briçonnet, Correspondance 2, no. 49, 13 (Saulnier 1977 and Jourda, Répertoire, no. 88). For further examples, see chapter 6, note 7.

176

chapter five – the meaux experiment i

noting that the ladies at court had expressly called for it as part of a sweeping effort to evangelize the laity: Today, God in his goodness has inspired the noble hearts and Christian desires of the most exalted ladies and powerful princesses of the realm to have the New Testament printed anew, both for their own instruction and comfort as well as the subjects of this kingdom, in order that it might be “Most Christian” not only in name but in deed.71

The last clause underscores Lefèvre’s conviction that reform meant making the gospel accessible to the laity through a vernacular Bible. By insinuating that France was not, in fact, “most Christian,” he was courting trouble. The following year, the editors of the rapidly appearing reprints suppressed this passage expressing Lefèvre’s critical assessment of the state of religion in the realm. Lefèvre’s conviction, too radical to publicly express after 1524, had been formed two years earlier in response to the publication of Luther’s German Bible. In his preface to the Gospels of June 1523, Lefèvre proclaimed that his translation formed part of a newly unfolding and already embattled restoration of the church: When St. Paul was alive, preaching and declaring the word of God with the other apostles and disciples, he said “Ecce nunc tempus acceptible, ecce nunc dies salutis” [2 Cor. 6:2]. “Now is the favored time; now is the day of salvation.” Today the time has come that our Lord Jesus Christ, our sole salvation, truth, and life, wishes his gospel to be purely declared throughout the world, so that we no longer go astray following the doctrines of men who think highly of themselves, when, as Paul says, they are nothing and deceive themselves.72

71 “Et presentement il a pleu à la bonté divine inciter les nobles cueurs et chrestiens desirs des plus haultes et puissantes dames et princesses du royaume de rechef faire imprimer le nouveau testament pour leur edification et consolation, et de ceulx du royaume, affin qu’il ne soit seulement de nom dit royaume treschrestien mais aussi de fait.” Preface to the second installment of the New Testament (Acts-Revelation), c. 6 November 1523, Rice, Prefatory Epistles, no. 138, 457–468; 457–458; Herminjard 1, no. 79, 159–169. 72 “Quant sainct Pol estoit sur terre preschant et annonceant la parolle de dieu avec les autres apostres et disciples il disoit: “Ecce nunc tempus acceptabile, ecce nunc dies salutis: Voicy maintenant le temps acceptable, voicy maintenant les jours de salut.” Aussi maintenant le temps est venu que nostre seigneur Jesuchrist, seul salut, verité et vie, veult que son Evangile soit purement annoncee par tout le monde, affin que on ne se desvoye plus par autres doctrines des hommes qui cuydent estre quelque chose et (comme dict sainct Pol) ilz ne sont riens, mais se decoyvent eulx mesmes [Gal. 6:3].” Rice, Prefatory Epistles, no. 137, 449–450; Herminjard 1, no. 69, 132–138.

from clerical reform to evangelical renewal, – 177 Throughout the preface, Lefèvre asserted that true followers of Christ needed now to proclaim the pure gospel in order to combat the false doctors, who claiming exclusive right to interpret the Scriptures, had blinded the people with their misleading doctrines and human traditions. Moreover, he declared that the translations of Scriptures then appearing in other lands had inspired him to follow suit. Here, to his peril, he implicitly acknowledged that he had emulated the heretic Luther. In 1523, the German reformer’s 1522 German New Testament was the only notable vernacular translation to have appeared in recent memory.73 Lefèvre’s vision of renewal had radical implications. In announcing it, he shouldered a twofold task: to outline a program for spreading the gospel and to fend off attacks by critics. The coming renewal, he argued, whose beginnings he saw throughout Europe, would be achieved by giving the laity the vernacular Scriptures and biblical sermons. The increase of their faith required direct access to the Bible “so that they can be as certain of the truths of Scripture as those who have it in Latin.”74 Francis I, he asserted, had even decided to promote gospel preaching, the second plank of his program.75 In turn, he predicted 73 “Et après auront par le bon plaisir de iceluy le residu du nouveau testament, lequel est le livre de vie et la seule reigle des Chrestiens, ainsi que pareillement est maintenant faict en diverses regions et diversitez de langues par la plus grande partie de Europe entre les Chrestiens.” Rice, Prefatory Epistles, no. 137, 449–456, 450; Herminjard 1, no. 69, 132–138. In the fifteenth century the Bible had been published in German, Italian, French (abridged), Czech, Dutch, and Catalan, but the only new modern language translations in the years just before (maintenant) Lefèvre’s 1523 New Testament were one in Slovenian (1517–1525) and Luther’s 1522 German New Testament. See Guy Bedouelle and Bernard Roussel, Le temps des Réformes et la Bible, Bible de tous les Temps 5 (Paris: Beauchesne, 1989), 459–460. 74 “Et affin que ung chascun qui a congoissance de la langue gallicane et non point du latin soit plus disposé à recevoir ceste presente grace, . . . vous sont ordonnees en langue vulgaire par la grace d’iceluy [Christ] les evangiles selon le latin que se lit communement par tout sans riens y adiouster ou diminuer, affin que les simples membres du corps de Jesuchrist, ayant ce en leur langue, puissent estre aussi certains de la verité evangelique comme ceulx qui l’ont en latin.” Rice, Prefatory Epistles, no. 137, 449–456, 450; Herminjard 1, no. 69, 132–138. 75 “Et telle est l’intention du debonnaire roy tant de cueur que de nom treschrestien, en la main duquel dieu a mys si noble et excellent royaume, que la parolle de dieu soit purement preschee partout son royaume à la gloire du pere de misericorde et de Jesuchrist son filz. Laquelle chose doit donner courage à tous ceulx dudit royaume de proffiter en vayre [sic for vraye] chrestienneté, en suyvant, entendant et croyant la vivifiante parolle de dieu. Et benoiste soit l’heure quant elle viendra.” Rice, Prefatory Epistles, no. 138, 457–468, 465–466; (Herminjard 1, no. 79, 159–169). The boldness of Lefèvre’s claim to have royal backing is indicated by the fact that the clause “en la main duquel . . . son fils,” was suppressed in the subsequent 1525 Du Bois edition.

178

chapter five – the meaux experiment i

that these measures would enlighten some of the laity, enabling them to become teachers of others. While not forbidding the clergy a place in this evangelical renewal, Lefèvre denied that they had an exclusive right to interpret and teach the gospel. Everyone granted insight into the meaning of the Holy Writ—whether clerics or laypersons—should take on the task of propagating the faith. In effect, Lefèvre rejected the church’s claim that ministry of the word is the sole prerogative of clerics. Lefèvre knows only one qualification: right understanding of the gospel. He opened ministry of the word to all applicants. Lefèvre anticipated two criticisms. Some claimed that the existing abridged Bible translations were sufficient for the laity. Lefèvre countered that he did not want to leave out or alter anything, since changes would blur the meaning imparted by the Holy Spirit.76 More grievous, others rejected vernacular Bibles as pernicious. The traditional clerical camp insisted that some biblical texts confuse and cause error. Only the learned were fit to interpret them. For Lefèvre the answer is clear: if so why were the Scriptures given to the Greeks and Romans in their mother tongues? It does not matter that some verses might be difficult to grasp. First and foremost, they are to be believed.77 Besides, the humble folk often see the meaning of passages which remain hidden from proud clerics who consider themselves wise.78 He concludes with a harsh admonition: those who withhold the Scriptures from the laity, while teaching the doctrines of men, do so in direct disobedience to Christ and will be held to account on the Day of Judgment.79 76

Rice, Prefatory Epistles, no. 137, 452–453. “Secondement diront que en leur [les simples] baillant ainsi les evangiles maintes choses seront difficilles et obscures, lesquelles les simples gens ne pourront comprendre, mais pourront estre cause de erreur; parquoy n’est convenable de les leur bailler ainsi. Il n’estoit point doncques convenable par ceste mesme raison que les evangelistes les baillassent ainsi aux Grecz, et ainsi les Latins aux Latins; car il y a moult de lieux difficiles et obscurs, lesquelz ne les Grecz ne les Latins ne peuvent comprendre, et suffit de les croire.” Lefèvre points out further that some of the most learned had fallen into error, such as Arrius, Sabellius, etc., but not the simple people. Rice, Prefatory Epistles, no. 137, 453–454. 78 “. . . le soleil spirituel . . . se communique aucunes foyes plus entierement et spirituellement aux simples, de tant qu’ilz sont plus humbles et petits, que aux clers moins humbles et plus grans, comme est congneu par la parolle de nostre seigneur disant en l’evangile sainct Matthieu, Confiteor tibi pater domine caeli et terrae, quia abscondisti haec a sapientibus et prudentibus et revelasti ea parvulis: Or pere seigneur du ciel et de la terre, je te rendz graces que tu as caché ces choses aux sages et prudens et les as revelé aux petis.” Rice, Prefatory Epistles, no. 137, 454. 79 “Et se aucuns vouloyent dire ou empescher que le peuple de Jesuchrist ne l’eust en sa langue l’evangile, qui est la vraye doctrine de dieu, ilz sachent que Jesuchrist parle 77

from clerical reform to evangelical renewal, – 179 At the same time Lefèvre warns lay people not to become proud now that they have access to the Bible in the vernacular, especially if they have insight and some clerics remain ignorant.80 While Lefèvre enjoins those who have been enlightened to instruct others, he wants them to be careful not to scandalize those who remain in the dark.81 Lefèvre’s appeal to the laity was urgent. As his translation was appearing, the Faculty of Theology of Paris was conducting an intense six-month inquest into the Meaux reform.82 We will turn in the next chapter to this frontal assault on the program outlined by Lefèvre, but first Lefèvre’s counsel in the face of this persecution deserves highlighting. In the preface to the second installment of his New Testament dated November 1523, he advised followers that: [The gospel] tells us that we must remain firm in faith and patient during persecution. Tribulation serves as the road to perfection, purifying Christians, just as fire does gold.83

contre telz, disant par sainct Luc, Vae vobis legisperitis qui tulistis clavem scientiae, ipsi non introistis, et eos qui introibant prohibuistis. C’est à dire, Malheur sur vous, docteurs de la loy, qui avez osté la clef de science; vous n’y estes point entrez, et avez empesché ceulx qui y entroyent. . . . De ce fauldra il rendre compte devant le tribunal du grant juge au jour du jugement, et pareillement se on a presché au peuple parolles, faisant entendre quelles estoient les parolles de dieu, et elles ne l’estoyent point.” Rice, Prefatory Epistles, no. 137, 454–455. 80 “Et se garde sur toute chose de se enorgueillir ou de juges les autres destituez de semblable grace et intelligence. Car l’esperit de dieu par sainct Pol le nous deffend en plusieurs lieux, [citing 1 Cor 4:7 and Rm 12:3] . . . Et plus oultre dit, ‘“Non alta sapientes, sed humilibus consentientes: ne sentez point de vous orgueilleusement, mais soyez consentans aux humbles [ Rm 12:16].’ Et pource de tant que les grans tresors de dieu vous sont communiquez qui estes simples et sans lettres et non point clercz, de tant vous debvez vous plus humilier et excercer en toutes graces et vertus.” Preface to the second part of the New Testament, November 1523, Rice, Prefatory Epistles, no. 138, 459–460. 81 “Et ne debvez point semer les marguerites celestes, se intelligence vous est donnee, se ce n’est ne exhortant l’ung l’autre à aymer dieu (là git la vie chrestienne qui est vie spirituelle et celeste et non point charnelle et terrienne), et principalement es lieux et aux personnes ou povez seulement edifier et nul offenser.” Rice, Prefatory Epistles, no. 138, 457–468; 460 (Herminjard 1, no. 79, 159–169). 82 Clerval, Registres, 339. 83 Speaking specifically of the teachings in the Catholic epistles: “Dicte catholique, c’est à dire universelle, pource qu’elle appartient universellement à la doctrine de tous chrestiens. Elle enseigne que debvons estre fermes en foy, patiens en persecutions et tribulations, qui purgent et purifient les chrestiens et les rendent plus parfaictz, comme le feu l’or. . . . Et baille enseignemens de fuyr toutes les choses de la chair et suyvre seulement celle qui sont de l’esperit de Jesuchrist.” Rice, Prefatory Epistles, no. 138, 457–468; 462.

180

chapter five – the meaux experiment i

In sum, from 1521–1523 Lefèvre proclaimed in these manifestoes that the remedy for the deformed state of religion was to open the Scriptures to the laity by teaching and preaching with the vernacular Bible in hand. He called on bishops, priests, and secular authorities to enact this unprecedented program unperturbed by the manifest opposition of conservatives.84 With all respect for Briçonnet’s reforms targeting the secular and regular clergy, Lefèvre refocused the locus of renewal from the clergy to the people, from the ministers to the message. His way, the daring vision that preaching and teaching the gospel is the foundation of religious renewal, exalted the clergy as ministers, but put the existing clergy in the dock. For Lefèvre the sole justification for holding clerical office is service, not title to a benefice, but service directed at teaching the laity and involving them in the ministry of the word. This stance and his Pauline understanding of salvation set the Meaux group on course for direct confrontation with conservatives and even conflict with sympathetic patrons like Briçonnet who defended the church hierarchy and could not brook laypeople and lesser clerics defying superiors in the name of the gospel.

84

“Parquoy aussi tous evesques, curez, vicaires, docteurs, prescheurs deveroient esmouvoir le peuple à avoir, lire et ruminer les sainctes evangiles, accomplissans le vouloir de dieu. . . .’ ” [c. 6 November 1523], preface to the second installment of his New Testament translation, Rice, Prefatory Epistles, no. 138, 457–468; 466.

CHAPTER SIX

THE MEAUX EXPERIMENT II: MODEL FOR NATIONAL REFORM, 15211523

While Lefèvre d’Étaples sounded a lucid call for the renewal of the church in his prefatory epistles and directed the implementation of that vision at Meaux, Briçonnet and Marguerite struggled to advance this program at court as a model for the reform of the Gallican church. Their extraordinary correspondence from the years 1521–1524 is the only personal record of their attempt to win over the king and respond when those efforts came under attack. Covering the first three and a half years of the Meaux reform, the 120 extant letters exchanged between Marguerite d’Angoulême and Bishop Guillaume Briçonnet are important documents on two counts.1 As they are typically portrayed, Briçonnet’s treatise-like letters of spiritual direction have been viewed as the source from which Marguerite received the ideas and forms of expression that dominate her later writings.2 While scholars have argued about the subsequent influence of Luther, Calvin, and the ‘Spiritual Libertines’ on her religious development, they have stressed the enduring influence of Briçonnet’s teaching, especially his use of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite’s schema of threefold mystical ascent: purgation, illumination, and perfection.3 That Marguerite specifically

1 The letters exchanged by Briçonnet and Marguerite, which date from 12 June 1521 to 18 November 1524, are preserved in the fair copy manuscript penned by two of Marguerite’s secretaries. The last letter breaks off in mid-sentence. See Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, 2–3. Remarkably, no meetings or letters between them are attested thereafter. The ending of their relationship shortly after the record of their correspondence breaks off will be explained in the following chapter. 2 Saulnier sees the inspiration for several of Marguerite’s works in Briçonnet’s letters: Les prisons (Saulnier 1977, letters no. 19, 27.4, and note after 72 [Jourda, Répertoire, nos. 19 and 72]); Comédie de Mont-de-Marsan (Saulnier 1977 and Jourda, Répertoire, no. 83); and Le malade (Saulnier 1977 and Jourda, Répertoire, no. 61). For more on the influence of his letters on Marguerite’s writing, see Ferguson and Sommers in note 3. 3 Abel Lefranc wrote the first extensive study of Marguerite’s life-long spiritual journey through religious poetry. His powerfully argued thesis presents her as clearly Protestant, especially in her later works, a view with Pierre Jourda rejected claiming instead that she turned back towards orthodoxy. Most interpreters have taken a middle position between Lefranc and Jourda’s positions. Following Augustin Renaudet, Lucien

182

chapter six – the meaux experiment ii

planned, when receiving them, to consult his letters in the future is certain, since she had her secretaries transcribe their letters into a fair copy manuscript during the course of their correspondence.4 However, scholars have neglected the main subject and purpose that gave rise to, sustained, and regulated the tempo of their correspondence: promoting religious renewal, specifically by advancing Meaux as the model for a national reform.5 The bishop’s theological disquisitions, which indeed make up the vast bulk of the exchange, were strung together like—to borrow the meaning of ‘marguerite’ in Latin often invoked by him—so many Briçonnian ‘pearls of wisdom’ on a string of communication between two leaders of an embattled evangelical

Febvre, Henry Heller, Paula Sommers, and Gary Ferguson, they agree that Marguerite had heterodox ideas and was influenced by unitive mysticism, but differ in their interpretations of the priority the various elements in her thought over the course of her life. See the literature cited in the introduction in notes 9 through 14. 4 The editors of Marguerite and Briçonnet’s correspondence have established that the letters were probably copied in batches as their exchange went on. Thereafter someone continued to consult the manuscript during her lifetime until at least some time after Briçonnet’s death in 1534 but before hers in 1549, since later marginals refer to him as “feu évêque de Meaux” and Marguerite as “la royne,” but not “la feue royne.” Notably, this reader leaned closer to the Protestant camp than Briçonnet had, since he or she crossed out, at one juncture, the bishop’s description of the Virgin Mary as being without sin. See Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, 2–3, 40; Saulnier 1977, 452–453. 5 Veissière considers their correspondence to be chiefly “de nature spirituelle” and does little with it as a source for understanding the tenor of the Meaux reform from 1521 to 1524. Although he notes rightly that “Notre curiosité se trouve insatisfaite en ce qui regarde les événements contemporains,” in our view he systematically misses its import as a record of their inner ‘state of mind’ as they championed the Meaux reform and a national renewal of the church. See Veissière, Guillaume Briçonnet, 187–195; 191. Henry Heller does highlight their attempt to promote reform at court. His discussion concentrates on the circumstances that led to this project’s failure rather than on what their correspondence can tell us about the reform program they envisioned. See Heller’s studies in chapter 5 note 1, elements of which he reprises in his scenesetting “Panorama religieux and politique” in the edition of their correspondence; see Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, 15–24, 129–131; vol. 2, 7–9, 85–87. In two long articles, Philippe-August Becker provides summaries and a running commentary on large selections of their correspondence but never analyzes what they were attempting to do. For useful explanations of some cryptic passages, most of which Martineau and Veissière have incorporated in the notes of their edition, see Becker, “Marguerite de Navarre, duchesse d’Alençon, et G. Briçonnet, évêque de Meaux, d’après leur correspondance manuscrite (1521–1524), suivi d’un tableau chronologique,” BSHPF (1900), 393–477, 661–687. The modern edition of the correspondence supersedes Becker’s second article, which is composed entirely of enormous undigested quotes from Briçonnet’s letters with no context, interpretation, or notes: “Les idées religieuses de Guillaume Briçonnet, évêque de Meaux,” Revue de théologie et de questions religieuses 9 (1900), 318–358, 377–416.

model for national reform, –

183

movement.6 Briçonnet wrapped his spiritual musings around the gritty, practical problems that arose as they pursued controversial initiatives. In their letters, they developed strategies, exchanged advice, encouraged each other, announced progress, and discussed setbacks. Echoing the royal family’s preoccupation with fighting the first Valois-Hapsburg war, they employed a military lexicon, a dominant metaphoric register among several others taken from the Bible, Pseudo-Dionysius’s works, and nature. Marguerite and Briçonnet found this lexicon particularly apt because a religious ‘cold war’ had in fact broken out in response to their campaign at Meaux and the court. The territory in dispute, as they realized, was the heart of royal courtiers and commoners; at stake was the religious direction of France. Furthermore, their letters reverberate with many voices. They are not, as most scholars portray them, the remainder of an intimate dialogue between Briçonnet and Marguerite, and still less of some mystical monologue delivered by a master to his disciple. Briçonnet claims often to be writing as the pupil, even the stenographer, of Lefèvre and other scholars in his entourage.7 In turn, Marguerite “sub-ministered” the Meaux group’s teaching to a growing group of sympathizers at court.8 Marguerite and Briçonnet also allude to an array of additional letters, legal documents, religious books, and oral messages exchanged between their two circles. Unfortunately, all but a few traces of these battlefront communiqués have been lost. All that remains to reconstruct their strategy is their letters, in which Marguerite and Briçonnet tended to spiritualize matters, speaking of their concrete plans and events in

6 Briçonnet’s 63 letters, in comparison with Marguerite’s 64 (several from each are lost), constitute well over eighty percent of the total verbiage. For one of Briçonnet’s many metaphoric dilations on Marguerite’s name, see Correspondance 2, no. 65, 59 (Saulnier 1977 and Jourda, Répertoire, no. 119). 7 In one poignant letter, having relied on Lefèvre d’Étaples and others to answer Marguerite’s queries, Briçonnet writes, “Et sy, d’aventure, ne povez par delà descouvrir [an answer to a question about Scripture], envoiez la au Fabre [Lefèvre d’Étaples] qui se tient en vostre dict hermitaige [Meaux]: j’espere qu’il et ses deux compaignons [François Vatable and Gérard Roussel] satisferont à vostre desir, duquel seray, comme dict est, soliciteur et scribe, sy besoing est.” 16 January 1523, Briçonnet, Correspondance 2, no. 49, 15 (Saulnier 1977 and Jourda, Répertoire, no. 88); cf., Correspondance 2, no. 53, 32 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 93); no. 73, 77 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 134); and no. 81, 108 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 144). 8 Marguerite and Briçonnet frequently used subministrer and its derivatives to denote spreading the gospel as inspired by the Holy Spirit, e.g., Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 27, 137; no. 38, 210; vol. 2, no. 87, 125–126; no. 109, 183; no. 112, 119 (Jourda, Répertoire, nos. 51, 63, 151, 179, and 182).

184

chapter six – the meaux experiment ii

metaphor, treating them as exemplars of higher truths. Moreover, the sole surviving manuscript copy of their letters shows signs that sensitive material was expunged during transcription. Despite its limitations, their correspondence provides two types of insider information not available from book prefaces, synodal letters, or the Faculty of Theology’s and parlement’s records of their investigations of the Meaux group. Marguerite and Briçonnet’s allusions to events as well as the chronological grouping of their letters allow us to follow the progress and regress of their campaign as well as their state of mind in the face of changing fortunes. Moreover, they discuss theological themes and reform goals at greater length and more frankly than Lefèvre ever could in print. Their correspondence was interrupted by two, four-month-long caesurae (detailed in table 2). These substantial pauses mark the division between three distinct stages in the early development of the Meaux reform and its relationship to court.910 Table 2. Chronology of Marguerite’s Correspondence with Briçonnet Regular correspondence

Interruption in correspondence9

Period 1. June 1521–18 May 1522 Caesura A. 18 May–18 Sept. 1522 [4 months, 1 letter in response to 18 May] Period 2. 18 Sept. 1522–10 Feb. 1523 Caesura B. 10 Feb.–Early June 1523 [4 months]10 Period 3. Early June 1523–18 Nov. 1524

9 There were other extended breaks in their correspondence caused by illness, distance, and other preoccupation, but these were different in nature than the two much longer breakdowns in communication forced on Marguerite and Briçonnet when circumstances turned clearly and firmly against their plans. Three periods of slackened intensity lasted approximately two months or longer: 10 July–28 September 1521 [2 months 2 weeks, 1 letter in August]; 6 March–18 May 1522 [2 months 2 weeks, 1 letter, 20 April]; and 21 July–15 September 1523 [2 months, no letter]. 10 Based upon the editor’s incorrect ordering of a letter—Briçonnet, Correspondence 2, no. 56 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 106)—, they posit that two lost letters mentioned in it date to Easter, in the middle of caesura B. Letter 56, however, dates to mid-June, after their correspondence had recommenced and testifies to two lost letters, also from June. See below, note 116.

model for national reform, –

185

In each of the first two periods, Briçonnet and Marguerite championed the Meaux experiment at court as the basis for national reform. Both attempts were suspended when their hopes and plans succumbed to threats and setbacks. The third period of correspondence commenced in June 1523, just as the Faculty of Theology opened heresy investigations against evangelicals and Lefèvre published the first installment of his French New Testament. Marguerite and Briçonnet set about protecting their band, and she, at least, eventually mounted a counter-attack. After March 1524, while no break in communication occurred, the nature of their correspondence changed following their disagreements about Michel d’Arande’s preaching in Marguerite’s city of Bourges. At issue was whether they should forcibly introduce the Meaux reform into territories under Marguerite’s sway in the face of strong conservative opposition. Briçonnet urged caution; Marguerite pushed forward. Their argument reflected a basic shift in their relationship, and, in particular, their respective commitments to an ever more assertive reform program.11 Briçonnet’s nominal role as leader and Marguerite’s as follower, already ambiguous in the preceding three years, were reversed. Reflecting that change in their relationship, Briçonnet’s letters from March to November 1524 drop the issue of religious renewal and become indeed almost exclusively spiritual in nature as he comforted her in the face of daunting troubles: her growing isolation at court, the death of three female relatives, and her continuing childlessness. Hence, these last letters reveal little about the Meaux group’s plans and actions or Marguerite’s guidance. The following account reconstructs the nascent

11 Henry Heller observes that Briçonnet no longer spoke of reform in his letters of 1524, but more and more of the war, whose demands on the court allayed any hope of royal support for their projects. See Heller, “Panorama” for 1524, Correspondance 2, 86. Actually, the chief subject matter of Briçonnet’s letters from 1524, which grow to extraordinary, treatise-like length—several exceed twenty pages in the modern edition—are the successive calamities that beset Marguerite and the rest of the royal family: Marguerite’s continued childlessness, her rocky marriage with Charles d’Alençon, Louise of Savoy’s repeated illnesses, and, most grievous, the premature deaths, after protracted illnesses, of three women close to her: her sister-in-law, Queen Claude; her niece, Princess Charlotte; and her aunt, madame de Némours, Philiberte de Savoie. Understandably, Briçonnet concentrated on consoling Marguerite. Even so, his concern for these losses as well as her other preoccupations at court—war, illness, childlessness, and deaths in the family—cannot explain his near total loss of interest in discussing the reform plans that had formed the core subject of their correspondence over the past two and a half years. As we will see in chapter 8, Marguerite and the rest of the Meaux group forged ahead with these plans during 1524, while Briçonnet drew back.

186

chapter six – the meaux experiment ii

evangelical network’s missing battle plans and troop movements during these three rounds to 1524, when other sources pick up the relay.

Briçonnet’s ‘Band’ and ‘Captain’ Marguerite In February 1522, Briçonnet encouraged Marguerite: “You must become Captain [of our band] so that others will be inspired to enter into the Promised Land.”12 The bishop had a penchant for preaching to the faithful as if they were still wavering converts, for the king’s sister had long since become “captain” of the Fabrist group gathered at Meaux. Indeed, even before any of them had begun to collaborate actively with Briçonnet, she had already been taking religious instruction from the group around Lefèvre d’Étaples, as her first letters from the summer of 1521 indicate. Evidently, they all were committed in some nascent way to spreading evangelical ideas prior to the beginning of the Meaux experiment.13 Marguerite was certainly seeking spiritual nourishment when she turned to Briçonnet, but not simply, nor even principally, from him. In the letter inaugurating their correspondence, Marguerite asked Briçonnet to send to her Michel d’Arande, a disciple of Lefèvre d’Étaples, so that he could resume teaching at court.14 In all likelihood, she had come to know Maître Michel after 1519, when François Du Moulin introduced d’Arande’s master to her during the Mary Magdalene debate. Judging from the timing and tenor of her first letter, Marguerite’s

12 “Il fault que soiez capitaine pour animer les autres à entrer en la terre de promission . . .,” Briçonnet to Marguerite, 5 February 1522, Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 28, 144; Jourda, Répertoire, no. 53 (Saulnier 1977, no. 54.1). 13 This early dating of Marguerite’s interest in evangelical ideas and contact with the Fabrist circle helps to explain the basis of Marguerite and her operatives’ subsequent contact with Anne Boleyn and her entourage. If, as we are arguing, Marguerite’s ‘evangelical’ journey started before June 1521, then this increases the possibility that Anne was exposed to nascent evangelism before her departure from the French court in the autumn of 1521. For a summary of the debate about Anne’s religion and material discoveries that point to an even stronger connection between Anne and Marguerite than previously established, see James P. Carley, “ ‘Her moost lovyng and fryndely brother sendeth gretyng’ Anne Boleyn’s Manuscripts and Their Sources” in Illuminating the Book: Makers and Interpreters. Essays in Honour of Janet Backhouse, ed. Michelle P. Brown and Scot McKendrick (London and Toronto: The British Library and University of Toronto Press, 1998), 261–280; esp. 270–272. See further, chapter 9. 14 [Before 12 June 1521], Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 1, 25 (Saulnier 1977 and Jourda, Répertoire, no. 15).

model for national reform, –

187

attention probably fixed on Briçonnet, who had already helped her to reform religious houses in Alençon, because Lefèvre and his disciples had just formed the “band” at Meaux to which Marguerite refers in her second letter and repeatedly thereafter.15 While appealing for spiritual nourishment, she promised to protect and promote the Meaux band’s reform venture as their advocate at court, or, as Briçonnet would later have it, their captain.16 In the first phase of their correspondence, the issue of reform dominated. Briçonnet and Marguerite discuss it excitedly, swearing their allegiance, lamenting their insufficiency, decrying their adversaries. Though neither spelled out a detailed agenda, their main battle plans are discernible. Marguerite, Briçonnet, and his charges were engaged a multi-front struggle to renew the religious life of Meaux, to evangelize the court, and, ultimately, to convince Louise of Savoy and Francis I to adopt their program as the model for a national reform. In their first letters, Marguerite and Briçonnet exchanged promises of their common commitment to promote “the one necessary thing” (le seul nécessaire), Christ and his gospel.17 Marguerite called for Michel d’Arande so that he might “for the honor of God” preach and give spiritual aid to her entourage. In response, the bishop praised her desire to know Christ, of which he had long been aware, and encouraged her “to die in Christ’s sweet battle,”18 yet, for pressing, unspecified

15 Marguerite referred to the Meaux group variously as ‘bande,’ ‘freres,’ ‘compaignie,’ ‘sieurs,’ ‘peres,’ and ‘serviteurs,’ Briçonnet Correspondance 1, 29, 30, 37, 71, 194; vol. 2, 26, 107, 108, and 191. Given the frequent mentions of Lefèvre and d’Arande by name as well as allusions to Vatable and Roussel in their letters, it is clearly the Fabrists to whom she was referring. 16 “Je vous prie que ceste charité [Briçonnet and d’Arande’s prayers] ne me soit desnyée et je m’oblige que, ainsy que serez mes bons advocatz envers le tout [God], qu’il luy plaira me faire estre la vostre en ceste court en toutz les affaires où me vouldrez emploier.” [Bourgogne?, after 19 June 1521], Briçonnet Correspondance 1, no. 5, 33 (Saulnier 1977 and Jourda, Répertoire, no. 5). 17 The phrase “le seul necessaire” appears throughout their correspondence as shorthand for their allegiance to the cause of the gospel. For its frequent initial use, see Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, nos. 1–5, 25–35 (Jourda, Répertoire, nos. 15, 16, 18, 19, and 20). 18 “Bataille il [Christ] livre, et, pour à icelle non resister, ains y mourir, secours yl donne. . . . Je cuide congnoistre de quel dard estes navrée: secours querez, pour entierement en ceste doulce battaille mourir, sans jamais vivre. Par icelle on parvient à mort vivifiante, et toutesfois mortiffiant la vie, en viviant on meurt et en mourant on vit. Croiez, Madame, que j’ay prins singulier plaisir, long temps a, à congnoistre en vous la grace du debonnaire Seigneur.” Briçonnet to Marguerite, Meaux, 12 June 1521, Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 2, 28 (Saulnier 1977 and Jourda, Répertoire, no. 16).

188

chapter six – the meaux experiment ii

reasons, Briçonnet deferred sending Master Michel. Instead both he and d’Arande dispatched letters, which, Marguerite reported, gave her “an opportunity to begin hungering for understanding about the path to salvation.”19 Thankful for these edifying missives, Marguerite shared them with her aunt, Philiberte de Savoie, madame de Nemours, and expressed the wish to die as part of his band in the war he was waging for the faith and love of God.20 If Marguerite and her aunt’s spiritual nourishment were the only thing at stake in these first few letters, their martial rhetoric of selfsacrifice in a holy war would have been grandiose. These expressions, however, show that Marguerite and Briçonnet were planning bold actions to advance ‘le seul necessaire’ and that they were prepared to fight on in the face of stiff opposition. At that juncture in July 1521, Briçonnet did not send d’Arande to her because he feared that a hostile reaction to his preaching at court might break the bonds between Marguerite, Louise, and Francis, hence jeopardizing royal favor towards them.21 Briçonnet’s caution presupposes that already by July 1521 he

19 “. . . je loue de toute ma puissance le seul bien necessaire, qui, par sa bonté, permect à celle qui se peult dire moings que rien, tant de grace que d’avoir eu, par vostre lettre et celle de Maistre Michel, occasion de desirer commancer d’entendre le chemin de salut.” Marguerite to Briçonnet, [After 19 June 1521], Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 5, 33 (Saulnier 1977 and Jourda, Répertoire, no. 18). 20 “. . . vous soit donnée sa paix eternelle [of “ung seul bien necessaire,” that is, of Christ], après les longues guerres que portez pour la foy et l’amour de Dieu. En laquelle bataille desire mourir en vostre bande. La toute vostre fille, Marguerite.” Marguerite to Briçonnet, [end of June–beginning of July 1521], Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 3, 30 (Saulnier 1977 and Jourda, Répertoire, no. 18). 21 Agreeing with Briçonnet’s reasons, Marguerite writes, “. . . puis que le temps, le pays et les propos ne sont propres pour la venue de maistre Michel, à quoy je m’accorde.” [End of June 1521], Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 3, 30 (Saulnier 1977 and Jourda, Répertoire, no. 18). Briçonnet’s advice must have been conveyed in an accompanying message, since she writes, [c. 15 July 1521], “. . . congnoissant que, pour le present, avez affection fondée en raison et seul regard du tout seul necessaire, je m’y emploiray avec sa grace, s’il luy plaist, comme à ce que autant puis souhaiter, car il est bien clair, veu les raison de vostre lettre et de leur creance [oral elaboration by letter carrier], que sy la trienalité est rompue qu’ilz seront en danger trop grand et j’espere que sy les peres viennent icy qu’il leur sera respondu selon vostre conseil.” (Emphasis added); Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 5, 33–34 (Saulnier 1977 and Jourda, Répertoire, no. 20). Heller rightly points out that, in this case, “pères” probably refers to the Franciscans of Meaux whom Briçonnet had forbidden to show an image of St. Francis stigmatized. This conflict, however, was in Marguerite’s eyes but the possible occasion, not the underlying cause, of a possible decline in Louise of Savoy and Francis I’s support for the Meaux reform.

model for national reform, –

189

and Marguerite were soliciting royal support for the Meaux reform, and extolling it as a model for the French church.22 Soon, however, their activity did foster a heated and divisive struggle. Few sources reveal the climate of religious conflict at Meaux, Paris, or the court before 1523, yet Briçonnet and Marguerite’s correspondence plainly indicate that from the very beginning of their collaboration they and their entourages found themselves engaged in a bitter fight over fundamental religious issues and for influence over the king’s policy on the Gallican church. The actions of the Faculty of Theology confirm that they were the focus of this undeclared but fiercely waged cold war already by the summer of 1521. Soon after Lefèvre and his team, who were already under heavy suspicion, reached Meaux from Paris, they came under scrutiny again. In August, some four months after the Meaux group had assembled and well before Lefèvre published his controversial Commentary on the Gospels (1522), the Sorbonne cited Martial Mazurier for preaching Lefèvre’s doctrine of the three Marys in the diocese.23 A member of the faculty, Mazurier had joined the Meaux group sometime earlier that summer. Though Lefèvre had already backed away from the controversy, if not away from his views, Mazurier’s preaching gave the faculty an opening to implicate the Meaux group. In this heated climate, on 24 October and then again on 11 November 1521, two days after the Faculty of Theology had condemned Lefèvre’s Mary Magdalene thesis, Briçonnet asked Marguerite to intervene

22 Briçonnet’s biographer, Michel Veissière, evidently finds the bishop’s call for a national reform and what that might have entailed unremarkable, for he only mentions it in passing: “A travers plusieurs lettres on perçoit que l’appui royal réclamé par Briçonnet ne regarde pas seulement le diocèse de Meaux et qu’il souhaiterait que le Roi favorisât le rénovation chrétienne dans l’ensemble du Royaume de France.” Veissière, Guillaume Briçonnet, 212. 23 The Faculty of Theology pursued the Magdalene question from 14 August to 9 November 1521. They regarded the revision of her cult as the thin end of the wedge which might open up all the received practices of the church to questioning. “Cum itaque proximis superioribus annis occasione quorundam opusculorum in lucem editorum, que plures esse Magdalenas disseruerunt et predicationum ad populum eandem sequentium sententiam multa et gravia oborta fuisse noscantur in populo scandala quam plurimi quoque potuerunt ea occasione abduci a sincera devotione in unicam Madalenam ut fructuose post lapsum penitentie speculum hactenus habita necnon divelli ab universalis ecclesie ritu unicam Magdalenam in suo officio astruentis; quinimo et posset etiam trahi dubium et ambiguitatem quandam de reliquis institutis que ecclesiastica sanctione observantur longa antiquitate receptis.” Clerval, Registres, 281, 294, and 299–301; 299–300.

190

chapter six – the meaux experiment ii

and passed on Lefèvre’s humble recommendations.24 Encouraging her to be like St. Cécile, who converted her husband and brothers, Briçonnet asked: When you see a good moment, promote God’s cause (l’affaire de Dieu), so that He might be better served and honored than He is presently in this realm. The king is His lieutenant general in it and has sword in hand—that is, the power of God—for this purpose so that He might be honored and loved.25

Soon thereafter, Marguerite suggested that, since recent events touched not only her own honor but, moreover, that of Christ, the best course of action would be to shut the mouths of “the hypocrites” and “the ignorant,” who were attacking “our brothers.” She asserted: I can assure you that the king and Madame [ Louise] are firmly resolved in this case to make everyone understand that God’s truth is not heresy.26

The hypocrites ranged against Meaux group were an assortment of mendicants and priests in the diocese as well as university doctors, whom they alluded to as the fathers ( pères), monks (religieux), ministers opposed to the truth (ministres contraires à verité), and doctors of the Temple who reaped a Platonic or Aristotelian harvest from their studies rather than a Christian one.27 By December 1521, Briçonnet and Marguerite were striving to protect the Meaux group from the Faculty of Theology and the disgruntled Franciscans at Meaux, whom Briçonnet had disciplined for begging for 24 Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 9, 48 (Saulnier 1977 no. 27.1 [Jourda, Répertoire, nos. 26 + 27]); no. 11, 60–62 (Saulnier 1977 no. 32.2 [Jourda, Répertoire, no. 32]). Though fearful about coming events, Briçonnet encourages Marguerite to persevere in the cause, praising her commitment to improving prelates. 25 “Et, quant verrez l’opportunité, procurez l’affaire de Dieu, à ce qu’il soit aultrement servy et honnoré qu’il n’est en ce royaulme, auquel le Roy est son lieutenant general et, à ceste fin, a le glaive en sa main, qui est la puissance de Dieu, pour le faire honnorer et ayme.” Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 11, 61 (Saulnier 1977 no. 32.2 [Jourda, Répertoire, no. 32]). 26 “Je ne sçay sy me doibtz plus resjouyr d’estre estimé du nombre de ceulx à qui desire de ressembler ou me contrister de veoir noz freres faillir soubz coulleur de bien faire. Mais, veu que la chose ne touche à moy seulle mais va contre l’honneur de celluy qui a souffert par charité la mort, pourchasée par envye d’ipocrites soubz nom d’infracteur de la loy, il me semble que le plus tost clorre la bouche aux ygnorans est le meilleur, vous asseurant que le Roy et Madame i ont bien deliberé de donner à congnoistre que le verité de Dieu n’est point heresie.” [Compiègne, 21 or 22 November 1521], Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 15A, 71 (Saulnier 1977 and Jourda, Répertoire, no. 35). 27 Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 25, 134–135; no. 27, 137; and no. 33, 164 (Saulnier 1977 and Jourda, Répertoire, nos. 51, 52, and 58).

model for national reform, –

191

alms with an image of St. Francis stigmatized.28 These measures were, however, but flanking cover as they pressed on towards the greater goal of promoting the gospel of Christ (la doctrine évangélique).29 Marguerite promised Briçonnet to share his exposition of true doctrine with those at court whom she found “eager for it.”30 Even at this early juncture, the struggle between those who wished to spread evangelical doctrine and those ministers hostile to the truth31 was, as Briçonnet and Marguerite saw it, fundamentally over the issue of the reformation of the church. For a time after Louise and Marguerite visited Meaux in September 1521, there were encouraging signs from court. In December, Marguerite could write brightly, “Madame [Louise] and the king are more inclined to a reform of the church than ever.”32 This promising report was the first of many false dawns of royal support for an evangelical enlightenment, which would never appear in the splendor Marguerite and her allies hoped. By February 1522, Briçonnet had to acknowledge reality: forces at court were conspiring to frustrate their hopes of inducing the king and his mother to set an example and inspire the clergy to restore “living water” to “the presently dry and empty church.”33 Marguerite complained of being alone, 28

Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, 34 and n. 8. For their frequent use of la doctrine évangélique and related terms to describe the core of their faith, see note 74. 30 Alluding to Briçonnet’s latest letters in which he had expounded on God’s distribution of grace under the symbols of water and manna, Marguerite promises that “de telle eaue et sy doulce manne, dont le prouffict de vostre escript ne retiendray, comme gourmande, que n’en donne la part aux esperitz que, en ceste compaignie, verray enclins à le desirer.” [Compiègne, c. 10 December 1521], Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 17, 75 (Saulnier 1977 and Jourda, Répertoire, no. 38). 31 See note 34. 32 “Vous priant que entre touz voz piteux desirs de la reformation de l’Eglise, où plus que jamais le Roy et Madame sont affectionnéz, et le salut de touttes pauvres ames, ayes en memoire celle d’une imparfaicte, mal ronde, mais toute contrefaicte parle [‘perle,’ viz. Marguerite] . . .” [Compiègne, c. 10 December 1521] Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 17, 75–76 (Saulnier 1977 and Jourda, Répertoire, no. 38). For Briçonnet’s elaboration on the translation of Marguerite’s name as ‘pearl’ see, letter no. 11, 50–62 (Saulnier 1977 32.2 [Jourda, Répertoire, no. 30]). 33 17 January 1522, Briçonnet complained of being “impeded from above” especially in his struggle with the “pères” and “religieux” in Meaux, but at that time claimed “L’affaire n’est hors d’espoir.” Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 23, 132–133 (Saulnier 1977 and Jourda, Répertoire, no. 48). Later, Marguerite insinuated that Christ was not to be found among her companions and relatives at court, [c. 21–28 January 1522]: “Celuy qui est venu secher et tirer les pecheurs, duquel le nom est bien à taire au cœur indigne de le penser [Marguerite] et qui ne scet où le trouver, car de le sercher entre les parens et congneuz, il n’y est pas comme l’on veult.” Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 26, 136 (Saulnier 1977 and Jourda, Répertoire, no. 61). 29

192

chapter six – the meaux experiment ii

“surrounded by thorns,” and “submerged in bitter waters.”34 Briçonnet identified these thorns as the ministers of the church and intimated that Louise of Savoy’s closest advisor, the Chancellor Antoine Duprat, was among them.35 Citing the multitude of destroyers surrounding her, Marguerite lamented, “the friends of God have good reason to cry and keep silent.”36 At the end of May 1522 Marguerite was finally forced not only to be silent at court but also to suspend private contact with Briçonnet.37 34 The climate for reform had worsened at court by late February. She relates, “J’ai trouvé Maistre Michel amendé et adoulcy,” which had allayed the immediate cause of their troubles at court. Yet she still had good cause to decry the “ministres contraires à verité” there and beg “aydez l’environné d’espines.” Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 33, 164 (Saulnier 1977 and Jourda, Répertoire, no. 58). Her closing remark occasioned a long reflection by Briçonnet on the deplorable state of the church, in which he interprets the thorns pricking Marguerite as the ministers of the church: “Lesquelles [espines], hellas! . . . regnent encoires en trop de lieux au monde, specialement au jardin de l’espouse [the church] qui est couvert. . . . Veritablement l’on peult dire que c’est le jardin où le doulx espoux a esté cruciffié et ensevely: ‘Erat autem in loco ubi crucifixus est ortus, et in orto monumentum, etc. [John 19:41]’ Il y est encoires mort et ensevely sans resusciter, car les ministres mainent telle vie comme sy la vie estoit encoires morte et ne feust resuscitée.” Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 34, 165 (Saulnier 1977 and Jourda, Répertoire, no. 59). 35 In another cryptic passage, Briçonnet laments that prelates guilty of exchanging spiritual things for worldly goods do not ask forgiveness of the “chancellor,” a term which he glosses as “le doulx Jesus, vray aigneau, qui seul ouvre les sceaulx et les cloux.” At this time, as the editors note, the Council of Sens was about to take place. Chancellor Antoine Duprat, the chief justice of France—whence Briçonnet’s metaphoric use of the term chancellor for Christ as a judge—was instrumental in organizing it for the chief purpose of forcing the clergy to grant the crown several tenths of its revenue. Briçonnet would seem to be commenting archly on the involvement of Duprat in orchestrating an exchange of ‘goods,’ when all involved should rather be seeking the pardon of the ‘true’ chancellor. Duprat would later be the nemesis of Briçonnet’s uncle, Semblançay. See 6 March [1522], Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 36, 180–181 (Saulnier 1977 and Jourda, Répertoire, no. 61). 36 Speaking of the spiritual nourishment that Briçonnet had sent to court “le bon grain que nous avez envoyé,” Marguerite laments that it is not yielding a good harvest, “. . . en lieu de bonté nous n’avons que amortisseurs [destructeurs] et tant de nouvelletez et de fainctes [feintes] que les améz [aimés] de Dieu ont cause de pleurer et taire.” [26 February 1522] Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 35, 177 (Saulnier 1977 and Jourda, Répertoire, no. 60). 37 Marguerite to Briçonnet, [after 18 May 1522], “Vous sçavez la necessité qui me fera taire. Dieu en fera sa volunté. Laquelle nous doint grace de sy bien entendre que sans l’entendre n’ayons que la sienne, vous priant par voz prieres vouloir y tirer, avec la bonne tante [madame de Nemours], la sumergée en eaue amere où trop est, Marguerite.” Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 39, 215 (Saulnier 1977 and Jourda, Répertoire, no. 64). The editors point out that the ensuing four months of silence coincided with a period of warming Franco-papal relations. But those relations never thawed, and mere pro-papal sentiment can hardly be the full reason for her forced silence. Saulnier argues that Marguerite was not claiming that she needed to break off their correspondence

model for national reform, –

193

After nearly a year, the Meaux group, Briçonnet, and Marguerite had very little to show for their efforts. In November 1521 Lefèvre had expressed the Meaux group’s desire to make the Scriptures accessible to everyone,38 but just as they were making their first firm step towards fulfilling this intention by publishing Lefèvre’s Commentary on the Gospels (before Easter 1522), strong opposition at court was threatening to close off their main hope for success: royal favor. The Council of Sens, March 1522: Reform Stalemate This initial period of activity closed with a missed chance to promote their agenda. In January 1522, Francis I called for archiepiscopal synods to be held throughout the realm for the reformation of the church.39 These councils were supposed to correct abuses, fill vacant benefices, and prevent their revenues (deniers) from flowing abroad. What abuses Francis had in mind is not clear, since the term covered the full range of infractions of canon law and corruptions of religious practice—whether from overzealous rigor, egregious delinquency, or heresy.40 The issue of benefices and their revenues, on the other hand, touched directly on the still-smoldering discontent over the Concordat, specifically regarding the selection of prelates and priests, especially foreigners (such as Luigi Canossa), and the payment of annates and church taxes to Rome.41 but that she was simply expressing her spiritual need to be silent in the face of the mysteries expounded by Briçonnet. While normally balanced in his interpretations, Saulnier’s argument here flies in the face of Marguerite’s repeated complaint during the preceding months that she was isolated and being attacked at court. Their correspondence then broke off for four months. 38 See chapter 5 at note 58. 39 “Au dict an 1521 [1522 n.s.], en janvier, fut institué et ordonné par tous les diocèses archiépiscopaulx de France, de par le Roy, un concille gallical, pour estre faict tenu par chacune province archiépiscopalle, au huictiesme jour de mars ensuyvant, par chacun archevesque en son archevesché; et fut ce faict de par le Roy et son conseil, pour réformer l’Église et pour oster beaucoup d’abbus, et aussi pour parvenir aux vacans des bénéfices; et affin que les deniers d’iceux bénéfices n’allassent plus hors du royaume de France.” Journal d’un bourgeois de Paris, ed. Ludovic Lalanne, Société de l’Histoire de France (Paris: Renouard, 1854; repr. New York, 1965), 110. 40 Mendicants, especially the Franciscans, and the regular clergy were engaged in an ongoing, vociferous battle for control of the parishes, about which the Faculty of Theology had rendered a series of judgments in favor of the secular clergy during the 1510s. The two groups were ever trading accusations of corrupt negligence and greedy intrusion. See d’Argentré, Collectio judiciorum, vol. 1, pt. 2, 353–357. 41 Francis I was likely baiting the clergy with the hope that he might suspend clerical payments to Rome. Later that summer, he specifically threatened Adrian VI with such measures if the pope refused to side with him against Charles V. See chapter 8,

194

chapter six – the meaux experiment ii

Briçonnet is credited with having inspired Francis I to call these synods.42 The bishop of Meaux certainly attended the Council of Sens in March 1522 (the only archiepiscopal synod of 1522 for which records survive), but he must have agreed with a contemporary chronicler, the conservative, Gallican-minded Bourgeois de Paris, that “in the end, the council did not take advantage of the opportunity and nothing was put into effect.”43 The synodal statutes’ articles are a dog’s breakfast of insignificant and pro forma measures.44 The first article sets the tone of clerical retrenchment rather than reform: it establishes strict guidelines regulating the writing material to be used—parchment over paper—as well as the maximum prices charged for titles to benefices and notarized certificates proving clerical status. Other lengthy articles require canons to wear their habits, forbid clerics—those of royal or ducal blood excluded—from wearing luxurious vestments, and prohibit the founding of new confraternities. Beyond these minor maters, four articles do touch on issues Briçonnet had identified as essential to the reformation of the church. They condemn clerical absenteeism, lament unreformed monastic houses, and decry the excessive use of excommunication, but set forth no specific remedies. Rather, bishops are enjoined to go on fact-finding tours to identify the guilty and to investigate possible solutions. The tentative, do-nothing spirit of this synod is codified in the final, catchall article. Proclaiming that it would be superfluous to add to the existing canons and councils of the church, the article notes note 27. After close cooperation with Julius II, this would have been yet another major oscillation in French relations with Rome. Previously, on 6 June 1520, Francis had granted the Parisian printer Toussaint Denis a three year license to print the Taxe cancellarie apostolice et taxe sacre penitentiarie apostolice (Paris: Denis Toussaint, 1520), which contained the schedule of fees owed to Rome by the clergy and laity for every conceivable type and circumstance of ecclesiastical promotion or penitential punishment: essential information for administrators of and investors in church benefices in the new Concordat era. 42 Citing the unpublished minutes of the Council of Sens, BnF Dupuy 456, Heller relates that Briçonnet and the Chancellor Antoine Duprat organized the synod. See Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, 129. 43 “Néantmoins finablement le dict concille ne prouffita de guères et n’y eut riens mis en effect.” Lalanne, Bourgeois, 111. 44 Joannes Dominicus Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, (facsimile reprints Paris: Hubert Welter, 1902 and Graz, Austria: Akademische Druck—U. Verlagsanstalt, 1961), vol. 35 (1798), 325–328. This text is reproduced from Edmund Martene and Ursini Durand, eds., Veterum scriptrorum et monumentorum historicorum, dogmaticorum, moralium amplissima collectio (Paris: Montalant, 1733), vol. 8, cols. 1018C–1022B.

model for national reform, –

195

clerical absenteeism, irregular tenure of benefices, abuses of feast days, and superstitious worship of images had been brought to the attention of the council, yet sends these problems back to the bishops for resolution.45 The Council of Sens dealt with two other important matters, which were not recorded in the statutes: the suppression of heretical books and the approval of the crown’s request for several clerical tenths to support the war effort. A pair of Lutheran books were condemned, including one by Andreas Karlstadt promoting clerical marriage, which had recently been reprinted at Paris.46 Based on this example the council appealed to parlement to enforce the widely flaunted edict against trafficking in heretical books.47 The prelates at Sens also asked the king for a royal ban against such tracts. It was as their price—a down-payment on a commitment to fight heresy—for agreeing to the king’s chief reason for convening the synod, his demand for money.48 In the following months, however, Francis only pursued payment of the clergy’s forced gift, leaving in limbo church reform, be it Gallican or evangelical, as well as the fight against heresy.49

45 “IX. Multa nuper fuisse in medium deducta non ignoramus, quibus tam expresse, tamque exacte consultum est, per statuta conciliorum, constitutiones Romanorum pontificum, inhibitiones, adjornationes pœnarum, minas carcerum, et censuras, ut non solum nihil commode possit adjici; verum etiam si quidquam addatur, supervacuum intuentibus reperietur, et sola in illis superabundaret repetitio.” This article then lists the issues that ‘ad dioecesanos remittuntur.’ Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, vol. 35, col. 328 B. 46 “Francisco [Poncher, bishop of Paris], praesule celebratum Luteciae provinciale concilium 15 Martii 1522 in quo condamnati libelli duo, scilicet apologi pastoris Combergensis contra papisticas leges sacerdotibus matrimonium prohibentes, et de coelibatu et viduitate, auctore Andrea Carlostadio.” Gallia Christiana, 16 vols., ed. Denis de Sainte-Marthe (Paris: J. Coignard, 1715–1865), 7, col. 159E. On 21 March 1522, the Council of Sens asked parlement to suppress the sale of De celibatu et viduitate and Andreas Karlstadt’s Contra papisticas leges sacderdotibus prohibentes matrimonium apologia. See Roger Doucet, Étude sur le gouvernement de François Ier dans ses rapports avec le Parlement de Paris, 2 vols. (Paris, 1921–1926), vol. 1, 334. An edition of the latter text was published in Paris by Jean de Gourmont at about this time, see Brigitte Moreau, “Une impression clandestine à Paris au temps du concile de Sens, l’Epistola Luciferi” in Le livre dans l’Europe de la Renaissance, Actes du XXVIIIe colloque international d’études humanistes de Tours, ed. P. Aquilon and H.-J. Martin (Paris: Promodis, 1988), 343–359. For the Council of Sens’ appeal to parlement on 21 March 1522, see “Poursuites contre les hérétiques (1522–1589),” BSHPF 80 (1931), 502, citing AN X1A 1524, fol. 145. 47 Imbart, Origines 3, 208, with citation from parlementary records. 48 Heller in Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, 129. 49 “Ordre aux commissaires et baillis royaux de transiger avec les membres du clergé des diocèses de Sens, Chartres, Orléans et Meaux pour des biens non encore

196

chapter six – the meaux experiment ii A Reform Program Rebuffed, Fall 1522

During the second period from September 1522 to February 1523, Marguerite and Briçonnet made their boldest overture to promote reform by presenting a formal program to Francis I. This time their proposal was roundly rejected.50 Although none of its specific provisions are mentioned in their correspondence, we can reconstruct its main lines. After four months of silence between Meaux and the court, Marguerite signaled in September 1522 that it was time to renew their correspondence and cooperation.51 Briçonnet attempted to capture Francis I’s attention with a gift, in all likelihood Lefèvre’s recently published Commentary on the Gospels. We do not have Briçonnet’s accompanying message, only Marguerite’s enthusiastic, if cryptic, report: I wish I could adequately describe the countenance of the king and his answer after I presented your gift and letter and read the first article of your letter to me. If at all possible, your concern for his life and soul is even more overwhelming. I hope that he will act on his promise and the whole affair will be to the honor of the one true Honor [God], and that by Him and from Him it will be honored. Happy is he who honors Him through His Spirit. I beg you, in His charity, to employ that which you have learned from Him and not to bury the talent through neglect or cowardice. On the day of the Lord, this commission will count against you if you invest His grace otherwise. Your nuisance, Marguerite52

amortis, en donnant une somme de soixante trois mille livres.” July 1522, Ordonnances 3, 179–186, no. 318. 50 It is worth noting that for the year-long stretch between May 1522 and June 1523, including the two caesurae, only 17 rather short letters are preserved (4 others are lost), dating from the middle months of September 1522 to February 1523. 51 Marguerite called for the renewal of their exchange “après longue actente” circa 5 September 1522, Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 40, 215 (Saulnier 1977 and Jourda, Répertoire, no. 69). 52 “Je vouldroys vous povoir faire bien au vray le rapport de la responce et du visaige que m’a faict le roy après luy avoir presenté vostre lettre de don et leu le premier article de celle que m’avez escripte. Car il me semble que le desir que vous avez à son salut, sy possible est, augmenteroit. J’espere que l’effect suivra la parolle et le tout à l’honneur du vray seul honneur, par luy et de luy honnoré. Bien eureulx est qui par son esperit l’honnore. Vous priant, en sa charité, d’user de ce que avez apris de luy et ne l’enterrer le tallent par negligence ou pusilanime [pusillanimité]. Dont, au jour de verité, se fera contre vous partie sy aultrement ne distribuez ses graces. L’importune, Marguerite.” [c. 15 September 1522, Saint-Germain-en-Laye], Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 41, 216 (Saulnier 1977 and Jourda, Répertoire, no. 71).

model for national reform, –

197

Whether it was Lefèvre’s Commentary, with its clarion call for a statesupported restoration of the church to its original gospel purity, or one of Briçonnet’s recently published programmatic synodal sermons, the occasion of Briçonnet’s literary gift was managed by Marguerite as an opportunity to broach a related reform project. To this Francis responded favorably, and she vaunted Briçonnet as an eminently suitable candidate to take charge of it. When he heard this, Briçonnet lauded her plan (propos), calling on God to aid her in it53 and to enable him to live up to her recommendation.54 Meanwhile, Michel d’Arande was again at court preaching to the ladies so that the Fabrists’ evangelical teaching had a well-placed spokesperson. Though Maître Michel wanted to return to Meaux by mid-October, Louise insisted that he stay in order to complete his scriptural instruction.55 Since the court was shortly to move and they were currently in favor, Marguerite asked Briçonnet to come and promote their agenda.56 There is no evidence that he actually made this journey, 53 “Je luy [God] supplie de tout mon cœur qu’il imprime au vostre ce sainct et veritable propos [her plans] et tellement rectiffie vostre esperit en luy (qui est la seulle infinie rectitude) qu’il le [Marguerite’s heart] face son ministre, qui chascun, speciallement [lui qui chacun fait son ministre et spécialement . . .] ceulx qui plus que aultres doibvent l’honorer entendement. Là gist la solidité ou ruyne de la chrestienté. C’est l’innovacion rectiffiée que desirois par mes dernieres [lettres] estre solidée et confirmée en l’entendement du pauvre esgaré. . . .” Briçonnet is referring here to plans for reforming the high clergy outlined to her in a previous letter, which is not extant [c. 10 September 1522], Correspondance 1, no. 40a, 216 (Saulnier 1977 and Jourda, Répertoire, no. 70). Briçonnet alludes to the need for church reform from on high, continuing “Plusieurs regnent sans regner, vivent sans vivre, sont sans estre, destituéz de l’esperit de Dieu. . . . Plusieurs honorent Dieu de bouche, en cœur esgaré et eslongné, prophitesent, guerisent les demoniacles sans esperit de Dieu . . . qu’il fault songneusement regarder et esprouver si les esperitz sont de Dieu et quel est nostre esperit en noz operacions qui sont maulvaises, sans la lumiere prevenente, assistente, et concomitante de l’Esperit de Dieu, qui doibt estre de nos œuvres, some il est de tout comancement, moien et fin.” 18 September 1522, [Meaux], Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 42, 217 (Saulnier 1977 and Jourda, Répertoire, no. 72). 54 “Parquoy la garantize que avez faict au roy est mal assignée sy le debonnaire [Christ], qui pour tous a satisffaict, ne m’en gecte hors.” 18 September 1522, [Meaux], Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 42, 218 (Saulnier 1977 and Jourda, Répertoire, no. 72). 55 “Le desir que maistre Michel a de vous aller veoir a esté retardé par le commandement de Madame, à qui il a commancé lyrre (sic) quelque chose de la saincte Escripture qu’elle desire qu’il parface.” [c. 12? October 1522, Saint-Germain-en-Laye?], Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 43, 218 (Saulnier 1977 no. 78.2 [Jourda, Répertoire, no. 78]). 56 “Mais louez Dieu qu’il [d’Arande] ne pert point le temps, car j’espere que ce voiage servira et me semble, veu le peu de sejour que nous ferons par deça, que feriez bien d’y venir, car vous savez la fiance que le roy et elle ont à vous et sy avec vostre vouloir et debvoir, ma priere pouvoit advancer l’heure et mon conseil fust creu, en

198

chapter six – the meaux experiment ii

but he and Lefèvre did send some specific proposals. They were bitterly disappointed by the king’s response. In late November 1522, Briçonnet acknowledged that their plans had failed to inspire the king: Lefèvre and I have given our advice in vain. . . . Please cover the hearth for a time: the wood that you wish to set alight [Louise of Savoy and Francis I ] is so green that it will smother the fire. . . . We urge you to go no further if you do not want to risk extinguishing that fire altogether as well as those other blazing brands that desire to inflame others.57

Francis’s reaction was so obviously unfavorable that Briçonnet realized any further agitation was bound to fail and might lead to a backlash. What was the nature of their proposal? What was the situation at court that led to its rejection? The second question has two answers, both of which highlight the controversial nature of their plans. In the first place, since the fall of 1522 the court had been pursuing closer relations with the pope, a diplomatic situation that did not favor Briçonnet and his colleagues’ ideas for religious renewal.58 Moreover, Michel d’Arande’s preaching at court created a scandal in October 1522, which no doubt

verité et desir regardant seullement l’honneur du Seul, vous conseilleroit et prieroit de n’y voulloir faillir, la pis que malade, Marguerite.” [c. 12? October 1522, SaintGermain-en-Laye?], Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 43, 219 (Saulnier 1977 no. 78.2 [Jourda, Répertoire, no. 78]). 57 “Le porteur [probably Denis Briçonnet] m’a tenu propos de grande pauvreté, auquel monsieur Fabry et moy avons dict nostre advis et conjuré le vous dire. Il vous plaira couvrir le feu pour quelques temps: le bois que voulez faire brusler est sy verd qu’il estaindroit le feu et ne conseillons pour plusieurs raisons (dont le surplus qu’il obmectra espere quelque jour vous dire) que passez oultre, sy ne voullez du tout estaindre le tizon et le surplus qui desire se brusler et aultres enflamber.” [Meaux], Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 47, 230 (Saulnier 1977 and Jourda, Répertoire, no. 85). The editors rightly argue that the tenor of Briçonnet’s letter indicates that this veiled passage refers to a failed effort to ‘convert’ the king and Louise of Savoy. 58 Henry Heller dates Briçonnet’s ‘cover the hearth’ letter to September, not November– December, as maintained by Becker, Martineau, Veissière, and Saulnier, and suggests that the court’s rejection of the Meaux group’s advice coincided with the arrival of the papal legate at court, who had been sent to mend relations. See “1522 Panorama religieux et politique” in Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, 130. For a critique of Heller’s dating, see Saulnier 1977, 223–224. Even if Heller’s dating of this letter is not correct, his general thesis that the court’s support for the Meaux group waxed and waned inversely to its need for papal support is correct. Though the court’s display of support for Meaux (and its subsequent withdrawal) may have been politically calculated, Marguerite (as did Lefèvre in the prefaces to his French New Testament) attested to the fact that the court regarded the Meaux group’s activities positively. The king’s papal politics did not jeopardize his protection of the Meaux group, but did block any effort to act more broadly on their reform proposals.

model for national reform, –

199

explains his desire to return to Meaux.59 His teachings to Marguerite and her circle at court had alarmed Guillaume Petit, the king’s confessor and erstwhile supporter of d’Arande’s master, Lefèvre d’Étaples. He went so far as to denounce d’Arande to the Faculty of Theology of Paris. On 15 November, Petit appeared before it to accuse this Augustinian friar, who, as he pointed out, no longer wore his habit, of preaching false doctrines in secret to Louise, Marguerite, and others. D’Arande, he claimed, had attacked the veneration of the saints, ridiculed the Faculty of Theology, and, most ominously, defended the arch-heretic Luther—who at that time still wore the Augustinian habit! He presented Luther as a saintly man and dared to argue that it should not surprise if he erred at points since Augustine, Jerome, and others had as well.60 Petit’s denunciation and the faculty’s ensuing investigation angered the royal family. Fearing their displeasure, Petit complained to the faculty about its indiscreet proceedings. By 15 December the royal family’s feathers were smoothed when the faculty suspended its inquiry.61 Yet, this was not the time for an evangelical breakthrough at court. After the bright days of hope following Francis’s promises in September 1522, détente with the pope and the d’Arande case made the Meaux articles inopportune. They were too daring and offensive to conservatives and therefore too risky for the royals to adopt. Indeed, Petit’s denunciation and the faculty’s investigation of Marguerite’s father confessor coincided with the attempt of Briçonnet, Lefèvre, and Marguerite to influence the king’s ecclesiastical policy. The conservatives’ targeting of d’Arande should be seen as an early volley in the emerging counter-attack against the Meaux group’s entire program, not just the teachings of one evangelical minister. 59 Becker considers the d’Arande affair as the whole explanation for the rejection of their “avis.” See his “Marguerite, duchesse d’Alençon, et Guillaume Briçonnet,” 427–428. 60 “Tunc affuit reverendus in Christo pater dominus Trecensis episcopus, magister Guillelmus Parvi, regius confessor et unus de magistris ejusdem Facultatis, . . . querimoniam subjunxit, Facultati declarans quendam nomine Michaelem Heremitam (nunc vero in habitu secularium presbiterorum agit in regia domo) in curia morari et assidue in cubiculis dominarum scilicet matris regis et sororis versari quotidieque in illis cubiculis predicare mulieribus et non publice, qui asseritur non esse sane doctrine sed errores quosdam seminare presertim quo ad cultum sanctorum et venerationem, quodque pro viribus statui theologorum denigraret et Lutherum heresiarcham virum sanctum diceret, nec mirum si in aliquibus errasset qui sic erraverunt et sancti ut Aug[ustinus], Her[onymus] et alii.” Clerval, Registres, 328. 61 See faculty meetings on 1, 8, and 15 December in Clerval, Registres, 331–332, and 338 n. 34.

200

chapter six – the meaux experiment ii

A Possible Reform Program What then were the offending proposals of Briçonnet and Lefèvre? Briçonnet’s discussion of church renewal in his correspondence with Marguerite contains three entwined themes: sharp criticism of the immoral life and corrupt teaching of prelates and theologians; a contrasting description of true ministers and correct doctrine; as well as, specific recommendations for eradicating the former and instituting the latter.62 Briçonnet did not leave any doubt that his fellow prelates (mes semblables) were career-oriented and devoid of spiritual understanding or zeal to preach the gospel.63 They were responsible for the utter infirmity of the church:

62 Though present throughout Briçonnet’s letters, he explicitly inter-relates his three principal reform themes in several key letters. The first are a series of treatise-like missives from December 1521 through February 1522 on the spiritual ‘eau,’ ‘manna,’ and ‘feu’ by which God distributes grace, see Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, nos. 18, 19, 21, 28, and 34, pp. 76–97, 114–128, 138–154, and 165–177 (Saulnier 1977 and Jourda, Répertoire, nos. 39, 40, 42, 54.1 [53], and 59). In subsequent letters, he reprises these themes at great length, see further Briçonnet, Correspondance 2, nos. 51, 58, 64, and 79, pp. 16–26, 39–43, 53–59, and 94–106 (Jourda, Répertoire, nos. 91, 110, 118, and 142). 63 Briçonnet derided his colleagues’ failings repeatedly. To mention but a few outbursts from 1521–1522, he: praises Marguerite for “. . . me invitant et mes semblables, comme faisoit le bon prophete David, à gouster la doulceur et indicible suavité de la très-saincte et super-celeste pasture, comme de vostre grace avez faict . . . ;” criticizes prelates for lack of devotion to Christ in the Eucharist, “O singuliere, très-digne et peu par mes semblables savourée innovation!” [Before 24 October 1521] Correspondance 1, nos. 8 and 9, 39 and 41 (Saulnier 1977 no. 27.1, [Jourda, Répertoire, nos. 26 and 27]); laments their indifference to Christ’s depthless love: “O quelle doulceur abissale, peu desirée par mes semblables!” 11 November [1521], Correspondance 1, no. 11, 58 (Saulnier 1977 no. 32.2 [Jourda, Répertoire, no. 30]); describes prelates as ‘diabolical salamanders,’ in a passage in which he draws on the metaphor of Francis I’s emblem, the fiery salamander, as a metaphor for Christ: “Helas! Madame, nous sommes au feu. Je parle de moy et mes semblables, de nature de feu regeneréz par feu. Et neantmoings plus froidz que viperes, que estraingons tout feu de grace, vraies salamandres diabolicques,” 22 December 1521, Correspondance 1, no. 20, 107 (Saulnier 1977 and Jourda, Répertoire, no. 41); and condemns them for forgetting Christ and their vocation in the pursuit of riches: “Là [in forgetting everything but God] est le port et abisme de toute oubliance, qui n’est gueres occuppé de mes semblables. Bien par cecité sommes oublians noz estatz et vaccacion [occupation], sçavans et cler-voyans au monde et à la chair, et pour noz honneurs, preeminences et plaisirs (que ne povons oublier) entretenir assez de plaiz [ plaids, viz., procès], procès et querelles, pour les garder et accroistre,” 6 March [1522], Correspondance 1, no. 36, 180 (Saulnier 1977 and Jourda, Répertoire, no. 61). See further, another of his attacks on the avarice of prelates, 31 December 1521, Correspondance 1, no. 21, 124–125 (Saulnier 1977 and Jourda, Répertoire, no. 42). After the Meaux group’s failure to convince the court to reform the clergy in November 1522, he continued this line of critique, if anything, with more bitterness, see below and Correspondance 2, no. 84, 116, 120 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 148).

model for national reform, –

201

The church is presently as arid and dry as a watercourse in the scorching southern heat. Searing avarice, ambition, and lust have burned away its living water, true doctrine, and image of holiness. Such a wind dissipates and turns to dust every grace. Everyone strives after profit and status, and as for God’s honor—no one gives a damn about it any more. His sheep can say that they have been left like the land, without water, unfruitful, and languishing. . . . We are completely worldly, we who ought to be spiritual. This occurs for want of wisdom and the water of evangelical doctrine, which flows not and is not distributed as it should be. Everyone knows this, yet few take heed, which is a sign that we lack perfect love.64

In view of this complete debility of the church, he urged Marguerite to convince Francis and Louise to set an example for the rest of the realm.65 With this wish came a warning: inaction would make the Royal Trinity equally culpable for the destruction of the church.66 They had the power to choose better prelates but did not.67

64 “L’Eglise est de present aride et sèche comme le torrent en la grand challeur australe. La challeur d’avarice, ambicion et voluptueuse vie a deseché son eaue de vie, doctrine et exemplarité. Tel vent est dissipatif et desiccatif de toute grace. Ung chacun serche son prouffict et honneur. Il n’est plus question de celuy de Dieu. Les brebis peuvent dire qu’elles sont demeurées, comme la terre sans eaue, infructueuses et languissantes . . . Nous sommes tous terrestres, qui debvrions estre tout esperit. Et ce procede par faulte d’eaue de sapience et de doctrine evangelique qui ne court et n’est distribuée comme elle deveroit. Chacun le congnoit, peu s’en souvient, qui est signe de faulte d’amour divine.” Briçonnet to Marguerite, [22 December 1521], Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 18, 85, (Saulnier 1977 Jourda, Répertoire, no. 39). 65 “Je luy supplie très-humblement qu’il luy plaise par sa bonté allumer tel feu ès cœurs du roy, de Madame et de vous, que vous puisse veoir par son amour importable et ravissante tellement feruz et navréz [frappés et blessés] que de vous trois puisse yssir par exemplarité de vie, feu bruslant et allumant le surplus du royaulme, et specialement l’Estat, par la froideur duquel tous les aultres sont gellez.” 22 December 1521, Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 20, 113, (Saulnier 1977 and Jourda, Répertoire, no. 41). 66 “Le monde est plain de gens qui disent et monstrent avoir bonne affection et [la première chose] qu’ilz font est monstrer leurs piedz nectz et deschaulx de toute sinsistre affection. Dieu le vueille (sic) par sa grace et qu’ilz ne couvrent leur sectes, divisions et partialitéz soubz le goust et manteau de l’honneur de Dieu, lequel est souvent postposé pour accroistre le leur. Helas! Pour savourer la vraie sapience ne fault point de saulce ne de moien. . . . Les cœurs des princes sont empoisonnetz de telz goustz adulterins. L’on voit aussy quel feu sort des esclatz de telz boutefeuz. Ilz ne sont boutefeuz de Dieu. Car son honneur n’y croist point, ains me semble que de jour en jour il decroist en noz cœurs. . . . Les chiefz aussy sont sours et, par ce, le feu estainct ou bien casché. C’est à eulx, tant spirituelz que temporelz, ausquelz elle s’adresse. Car d’eulx vient et bien et mal. Ils ont les clefz des portes pour faire recevoir la sapience divine et sans eulx sera tousjours dehors. . . . Les chiefz et princes temporelz ne sont exemptz de nostre bestialité et ygnorance, ou qu’ilz les veuillent, permectent ou instituent. Tel l’or est converty en plomb et encoires et le plomb fondu. Il n’y a plus de solidité à l’Eglise. Elle porte le nom sans subsistance.” Briçonnet to Marguerite, 31 December 1521, Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 21, 123–124, (Saulnier 1977 and Jourda, Répertoire, no. 42). 67 “Sy la paresse des vignerons, comme dict le saige, rend la vigne infructueuse et en

202

chapter six – the meaux experiment ii

This chastisement continued to be a central theme. Even as late as January 1524, a full year after Francis had rejected their reform articles, the bishop thundered an uncompromising challenge: the Royal Trinity must either use its power to select good bishops or stand ready to suffer God’s wrath: Though this kingdom bears the title “Most Christian,” it is full of bad prelates. I cannot understand how the king, Madame [Louise of Savoy], and you, who represent the truth, can suffer such disfigured and idle men, whom you, in part (by petition or otherwise), have established there. . . . I do not want to suppose that you are like [Pontius] Pilate, who asked for the truth but could not suffer to hear it. . . . How can you ignore that most of those who should be preachers of the truth have no desire to announce it because they are not capable? I know that the king has chosen some good ones, for which I praise God. It is not for me to judge how much the others tip the scales. I beg you, Madame, henceforth exalt God’s honor in the election and choice of His ministers, if you do not wish to incur His anger and wrath, which is ready to hand, if you do not see to it. You say, “The time is not suitable.” It is always the season for doing good. . . . If you want the church to embrace its estate and profession and conform to the truth, . . . see to it that when captains’ posts [prelacies] become vacant, you fill them with such people whom you will not need to pull down but who will be able in our Lord to assist and support you in executing your holy desire.68

friche, que peuvent faire les vignerons de l’Eglise peu choisiz et esleuz? Là gist la source et naissance de poyson, qui tue les ames. Et pour neant l’on reclorra la vigne, sy l’entrée est à chacun ouverte et mal gardée.” Briçonnet to Marguerite, 6 March [1522], Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 36, 181 (Saulnier 1977 and Jourda, Répertoire, no. 61). 68 “Le royaulme, combien qu’il se nomme très-chrestien, en [bad prelates] est specialement plain et ne puis entendre comme le Roi, Madame et vous, qui estes ymaiges de verité, povez souffrir tel deffigurement et pauvretté, que en partie (par importunité ou aultrement) y avez mises, et l’aultre endurez en mes semblables. Je ne vous repute comme Pilate demandans verité que ne voulissiez oÿr. Pour neant ne vous a la plenitude divine faict ses vaisseaulx rempliz de habondante grace, ne constitué ses excellentes ymaiges de verité que pour la promouvoir en tous estatz, speciallement en celluy qui tous ruyne. Comme povez vous ygnorer que la pluspart de ceulx qui doibvent estre preconizateurs de verité ne la vueillent car ne sçavent l’annoncer? . . . Je sçay que le Roy en a mis de bons, dont je loue Dieu. A moy n’est de juger de combien les aultres emportent la balance. “Je vous supplie, Madame, procurer pour l’advenir l’honneur de Dieu en l’election et choiz de ses ministres, sy tost ne voullez encourir l’ire et indignacion de Dieu, qui est present sy n’y pourvoiez. Vous direz: ‘le temps n’est propre.’ Il est tousjours saison de bien faire. Ung bon edifficateur ne bastist pour demolir. Sy desirez que l’Eglise recongnoisse son estat et profession et soit reduict à sa verité, comme sçay que Dieu vous en donne à tous trois le voulloir, qu’il acompaigne de sçavoir et pouvoir, pourvoiez, comme les places des capitaines vacqueront, telz y estre mis qu’il ne faille non seullement les demolir mais puissent en nostre Seigneur vous conforter et ayder à

model for national reform, –

203

Here and earlier, Briçonnet amplified his call for bons pasteurs from a diocesan to a national scale. He insisted that royal control over the selection of prelates under the powers of the Concordat alone cloud bring about structural changes that would supersede the piecemeal efforts of individual prelates. As it was throughout his letters to Marguerite, the king’s selection of good shepherds would have been the centerpiece of his and Lefèvre’s 1522 articles. What should the royal family look for in candidates? On this fundamental point Briçonnet’s advice to Marguerite reflects a substantial shift of emphasis from his diocesan reform agenda of 1518–1520. Beyond godly life and eagerness to perform their duties, he stressed the candidates’ doctrine and preaching. He warned Marguerite that many put up a good show of being upright and pretend to honor God while defending their particular interests.69 Without moving an inch on good morals as a benchmark of the true minister, Briçonnet now saw the essential difference between true shepherds and wolves in doctrine. It is remarkable that Briçonnet did not explicitly articulate his understanding of true and false doctrine in his letters to Marguerite with reference to the specific theological issues raised by the Paris faculty‘s recent condemnation of Luther, its investigation of the Meaux group, and Guillaume Petit’s denunciation of d’Arande. This silence is even more remarkable since on 15 October 1523 Briçonnet publicly

executer vostre sainct vouloir.” Briçonnet to Marguerite, 31 January [1524], Briçonnet, Correspondance 2, no. 79, 104–105 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 142). This passage comes in the context of Briçonnet’s debate with Marguerite over forcing the archbishop of Bourges to allow d’Arande to preach Advent 1524. See below. According to Becker’s reading of Marguerite’s subsequent letter to Briçonnet [Correspondance 2, no. 83, 114 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 146)], his request was evidently well received at court. In this second letter, however, Marguerite was obviously referring to a specific proposal relating to the investigation of Briçonnet’s uncle Semblançay, not to the selection of bishops. By January 1524, the wind at court was well against the Meaux group, nor would Marguerite follow Briçonnet’s advice on the d’Arande-Bourges debate. 69 See the passage quoted in note 66, which continues with the warning: “L’on vous persuade, Madame, que vous estes l’adresse de tous bons serviteurs de Dieu et plusieurs se disant telz se retirent à vous, comme à celle qui l’ayme, revere et honnore. Je crois que avez cœur et yeulx savourans, aussy voz piedz nectz. Mais, pour ne vous flatter, voz mains sont engantées. Je ne voy point encoires de flamme qui soit sortie de voz mains. . . . Le royaulme debveroit estre en ung feu, veu le temps que Dieu vous a donné la grace de povoir souffler pour l’accroistre à son honneur. Il n’est pour neant escript qu’il fault esprouver les esperitz s’ilz sont de Dieu. Deffiez vous, Madame, premierement de l’aucteur des presentes [Briçonnet] et de tous aultres qui n’ont piedz ne mains nectes.” Briçonnet to Marguerite, 31 December 1521, Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 21, 123–124 (Saulnier 1977 and Jourda, Répertoire, no. 42).

204

chapter six – the meaux experiment ii

condemned Luther in a synodal letter to the people of his diocese. He upbraided Luther as one who, in order to flatter the laity, overturns ecclesiastical hierarchy, allowing anyone to enter the ministry; as one who interprets Scripture erroneously while despising the views of the church fathers—including Briçonnet’s favorite one, St. Denis (PseudoDionysius the Areopagite); and as one who promotes individual, libidinous freedom.70 In warning Marguerite against “those who cover their divisive sects with the claim to sanctity,” Briçonnet could have had Luther and his French followers in mind. Indeed, this is how scholars explain why six months earlier, in April 1523, Briçonnet revoked the licenses of some circuit preachers at Meaux.71 Guillaume Farel, who left some time that year, and other more radical figures at Meaux are considered to have been Briçonnet’s unnamed targets, whom he described as sowing a deadly poison under the guise of true piety in their preaching.72

70 “. . . Martin Luther, qui en [in the church] renverse tout l’ordre hiérarchique, bouleverse et détruit l’état qui contient tous les autres dans la devoir, s’efforce d’effacer le souvenir de la passion du très-excellent Jésus, et qui, tenant pour rien le mariage spirituel . . . y admet sans choix le premier venu, pour flatter le populaire. Semblable à Chrysippe, qui se croyait seul sage, il tord à sa fantaisie par une interprétation nouvelle les saintes Écritures, et méprise tous ceux des anciens qu’il trouve contraires à ses témérités; le bienheureux Denis entre autres, ce disciple de Paul, dont les écrits sont après les Évangiles et les livres apostoliques ce qu’il y a de plus sublime et de plus sacré, il le traite de novateur!” “. . . il répand une licence qui dispose à tous les crimes, non-seulement les malades et les faibles, mais les forts eux-mêmes et les bien portants, de telle sorte qu’il ne reste presque nulle différence entre la secte de Mahomet et la religion de Jésus-Christ. Luther rend même celle-ci d’autant plus pernicieuse, que, supprimant toute sanction, il veut que chacun soit le propre juge de l’usage qu’il fait de sa volunté et de sa liberté. Lui-même se pose en défenseur de la liberté de l’Église, quoique ce soit d’un point de vue tout charnel et non selon la vérité qu’il disserte sur la liberté, qui n’est après tout qu’une servitude supérieure à toutes les libertés.” Briçonnet to the people of Meaux, French translation in Herminjard 1, no. 77, 154–155; Latin original in Toussaints Du Plessis, Histoire de l’église de Meaux, 2, 558–559. 71 See Veissière, Guillaume Briçonnet, 228. 72 “Quum ab ultima Synodo nostra commiserimus per litteras nostras quamplures, qui nostro gregi verbum Dei vice nostra disseminarent, intellexerimusque, nonnullos, quae Dei sunt non sincere ac pure, licet speciem pietatis prae se ferentes, quod dolenter admodum referimus, temperare, sed adulterare: satagentes tam pestifero animarum morbo tamque praesenti veneno quam citius, ut par est, ne paulatim serpens latius sese diffundat, occurrere, et medicamen adhibere quam saluberrimum, tenore praesentium districte praecipimus, mandamusque omnibus Curatis et Vicariis vestrorum Decanatuum respective quam citius intimetis, nos omnes et singulos antea per nos commissos ex nunc revocasse, ut et harum litterarum serie revocamus, inhibentes praefatis Curatis et Vicariis, ne eorum quempiam quovis exquisito colore ad Praedicationis munia recipiant aut admittant, nisi expressum super hoc a nobis aliud

model for national reform, –

205

In light of Farel’s future career as inflammatory preacher and reformer, this might seem a likely interpretation. Yet it is not credible that Briçonnet was targeting partisans of Luther, since, in his previous synodal statutes and throughout his correspondence with Marguerite, he never names or alludes to Luther or his followers. When Briçonnet first condemned Luther in October 1523, he did so, as we will see, to join with the court in shoring up its image of orthodoxy in the face of the Faculty of Theology’s attacks. Throughout his correspondence with Marguerite, however, Briçonnet’s main targets were the doctors of Paris and Franciscans of Meaux. Marguerite not only understood but also shared Briçonnet’s view. Just when Briçonnet was condemning Luther in public, in private she undercut the doctors’ claim to be the arbiters of the faith, describing true doctrine as “pure linen, not from Paris, but from Paradise.”73 Briçonnet and Marguerite were trying to put Francis and Louise on guard not against Luther but against the Parisian doctors of theology and their hypocritical semblance of piety and false doctrines. That Briçonnet was more concerned about self-styled defenders of the faith than Lutherans is further evident in his exposition of la doctrine évangélique, the term he, Marguerite, and those in their entourages used to describe the true essence of the faith.74 Briçonnet located the principal

mandatum habuerint.” Toussaints Du Plessis, Histoire de l’église de Meaux, vol. 2, no. 10, 557–558 (emphasis added). 73 In December 1523, after the Meaux group had weathered the full onslaught of the Faculty of Theology, Marguerite played on the evidently well-known reputation of Paris as a manufacturer of (good or bad?) linen and likened true Gospel teaching to “du pur lyn, non de Paris, mais du paradis.” Briçonnet, Correspondance 2, no. 75, 83 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 136). 74 Some representative examples of Marguerite and Briçonnet’s use of ‘gospel’ and its derivatives to designate true doctrine include the statements (with emphasis added from Briçonnet, Correspondance 1 and 2): Christians should “confesser Jesus Christ estre vray filz de Dieu, comme fist sainct Jehan Baptiste, disant qu’il n’estoit Christ, mais envoié de Luy, comme sont tous ministres evangelisans non leurs doctrines, fantazies et proffictz particuliers, mais la verité. Et pour enseigner que l’on adore, revere, honore, ayme Dieu le Pere en esperit et verité, car aultre chose n’est evangille, disant à ses disciples qu’il leur envoiroit l’esperit de verité.” (2, 100); “Tous Chrestiens sont ou doivent estre Evangelizans, ayans en leur coeur foy imprimée, amour en volunté ardente et en mourir vollantz par esperance.” (2, 266); and “. . . le debonnaire Jhesus [a] vaincu la puissance diabolique empeschant le royaulme celeste, par luy ouvert et introduict les fidelles, qu’il a, par sa sapience et doctrine evangelique instruict et illuminé, les purgeant de innumerables erreurs et superstitions et, comme grand evesque, ediffié le vray Temple celeste, eglise fidelle bastie de pierres vives.” (2, 286). The locution “doctrine evangelique” and its equivalents appear as the most frequent term Marguerite and Briçonnet use to describe the ‘true doctrine of Christ.’ For example,

206

chapter six – the meaux experiment ii

dividing line between true and false doctrine in the domain of soteriology, which was at the heart of the evolving Reformation conflict. Indeed, although Briçonnet was far from a systematic thinker or writer, and although he never specifically mentioned the Reformation conflict in his letters, his presentation of la doctrine évangélique focused on the very topics over which traditionalists and innovators clashed most strongly: Christ as sole mediator, grace, faith, justification, merits, Mosaic vs. evangelical law, as well as Christians’ servitude to sin and freedom under the gospel. It would be worthwhile to reconstruct his full views on these key topics and investigate their sources; here it suffices to sketch some major features.75 On key theological points, Briçonnet was often in agreement with German evangelicals, most likely under the influence of Lefèvre d’Étaples. This is evident in his letters to Marguerite and confirmed by events. If he did not share similar views, it would otherwise be difficult to explain both the Faculty of Theology’s attacks on him as well as his employment in the diocese of preachers deemed ‘Lutheran’ by it. Briçonnet does not repeat Luther’s formula of justification by faith alone. Yet he does declare, similarly, we are justified by grace, saved by faith and the grace of God, and not by our works, and in this there is only one to whom belongs the honor and glory whom we ought to honor and in him be glorified.76

see: doctrine evangelique, 1: 68, 85, 87, 88, 124–125; 2: 57. parolle evangelique, 1: 88; 2: 17, 54. eaue evangelique (baptismal grace, living water), 1: 88, 93. [loi] evangelique (vs. Mosaic law), 1: 93. congnoissance evangelique, 2: 55. lumiere evangelique, 2: 57. verité evangelique, 2: 100. reception evangelique, 2: 125–126. distributions evangelique: 2: 131. pain evangelique, 2: 152. At times they employ the noun form, evangile, to denote the doctrinal message rather than the mere text of the ‘Gospels,’ defining it as “la parolle vifve de Dieu,” 1: 88; “qui compreignent toute la vie d’un chrestien, foy, esperance et amour,” 1: 182; and as God’s instruction vs. [human] “coustume,” 2: 52. The verb, evangeliser, ‘to teach the gospel,’ for them expresses the proper action of all Christians; see 2: 100, 101, 131, 242, 266. Cf., ministres evangelisans, 2: 100; prescheur evangelque, 2: 126–127. 75 Veissière provides little information about Briçonnet’s theological training. See Guillaume Briçonnet, 25–29. 76 “Car par grace sommes justifiéz, par foy et par grace de Dieu saulvéz, et non par noz oeuvres, à ce qu’il n’y ait que ung à qui appartient honneur et gloire que devons honnorer et en luy nous glorifier.” Briçonnet, Correspondance 2, no. 116, 243 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 188). Again he stressed: “. . . il est certain que nostre filiacion n’est que de grace que recevons par foy et ne vient de nous; c’est don de Dieu, et non par noz œuvres qu’il nous a préparées pour y cheminer, comme dict divinement Monsieur sainct Pol, que vous supplie, Madame, retenir en vostre cœur sans jamais l’oublier: ‘Gratia enim estis salvati per fidem; et hoc non est vobis, Dei enim donum est; non

model for national reform, –

207

On the basis of his belief in the sole meritorious and gratuitous gift of grace, Briçonnet attacks those who have come to believe erroneously through human, natural reason that they themselves can achieve spiritual vivifying life through a life of fasting, prayers, and other works, in which they suppose their justification to exist and consist.77

Briçonnet attacks the dominant late-medieval view that by doing their very best ( facere quod in se est) in a state of sin, humans could attract God’s initial grace (gratia gratis data), enabling them to do meritorious deeds. Nor does he accept that, having offset their sins, a further infusion of grace (gratia gratum faciens) allows them to do deeds fully worthy of God’s acceptance and thereby earn their salvation.78 Briçonnet does, however, speak of three types of grace—prevenient, assistant, and concomitant grace—which correspond for him to the three stages of a sinner’s progress towards salvation: purgation, illumination, and perfection.79 Briçonnet’s peculiar Pseudo-Dionysian schema of salvation should not obscure the central issue: his emphasis on God’s gift ex operibuz (sic), ut ne quis glorietur. Ipsius enim sumus factura, creati in Christo Jesus, in operibuz bonis que preparavit Deus, ut in illis ambulemus.’ [Eph. 2:8–9].” Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 34, 169 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 59); see further, vol. 1, no. 19, 93–94; no. 21, 127; vol. 2, no. 58, 43; no. 116, 257 (Jourda, Répertoire, nos. 40, 42, 110, and 118). 77 “Il en est d’aultres qui macerent leurs corps, travaillant pour en sortir et plus y entrent. . . . Ilz cuident par raison naturelle et animale penetrer et pour debvoir parvenir à la fin de la vie spirituelle viviffiante par jeusnes, oraisons, aulmosnes, et aultrez œuvres, esquelz cuydent estre et consister leur justifficacion. . . . Telz sont trop en corps qui en œuvres corporelles et materielles mectent leur salut. Sainct Pol les appelle anymaulx (“Animalis homo non percipit que Dei sunt” [1 Cor. 2:14]). Lesquelz ne perçoivent, congnoissent et apprehendent ce qui est de Dieu, presumans de soy ce faire, en et par leur ame raisonnable vivante.” Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 46, 224; and again at no. 21, 119 (Jourda, Répertoire, nos. 205 and 42). 78 On the competing theories of justification and the terminology used in this debate, see Heiko Augustinus Oberman, The Harvest of Medieval Theology (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963; 3rd edition, Durham, N.C.: Labyrinth Press, 1983), 131–145, 160–174, and the “Nominalist Glossary,” 459–476; idem, “Justification: Man’s Eternal Predestination,” in Forerunners of the Reformation, 123–133. 79 On ‘grace and works: “. . . la beneficque eaue de grace . . . nous a prevenu et tous les jours previent par ses benedictions en la naissance de noz œuvres. Car c’est luy qui les produict et faict naistre par grace preveniente. Lesquelles l’ardeur d’amour du feu embrase, attire par inspiration assidue, concommitante, assistante et confortante nostre debilité. Car, comme il est escript par sainct Pol, nous ne sommes suffisans de nous comme de nous, mais nostre suffisance est de Dieu, qui nous prepare et faict ses ministres capables et ydoines, pour estre susceptibles de grace fructiffiante en luy et par luy et lequel parfaict pour luy nostre fruict qu’il conduict à perfection et maturité par grace perficiente, noz operations, lesquelles lors luy sont agreables, quant congoissons

208

chapter six – the meaux experiment ii

of prevenient grace prior to a sinner’s ascent on the road to salvation placed him with Luther, Staupitz, and others in the ranks of those who were critical of late-medieval semi-Pelagian teachings on justification.80 Like such thinkers, Briçonnet decries the belief that obtaining merits through good works will contribute to salvation and disputes those who trust that through free will humans can launch themselves on God’s covenanted road to heaven.81 We have seen earlier that Briçonnet misconstrued Luther’s understanding of Christian liberty as an unbridled license to sin without sanction. Yet, when describing true liberty under the gospel to Marguerite, he was much closer to Luther’s affirmed position either than he realized or than he was willing to admit. Like Luther in De libertate christiana (1520) and later De servo arbitrio (1526), Briçonnet affirms that one sins of one’s free will and yet, apart from grace, no one can will to do the good. After the infusion of grace, one is freed from the Mosaic law and made a slave to Christ, who does good works through and for the benefit of the sinner, even though the sinner never fully overcomes his sinful nature.82 Briçonnet did, however, stress more forcefully than

de luy tout et de nous rien.” Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 19, 96 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 40). 80 See Oberman, Forerunners, 124–126. 81 Of the three doctrines—prevenient grace, the bondage of the will, and predestination—emphasized by theologians critical of the Pelagian tendency in late medieval soteriology, Briçonnet has nothing to say about the latter. See Oberman, Forerunners, 125. 82 Some representative statements of Briçonnet’s teaching on ‘freedom of the Christian,’ and ‘the bondage of the will’ (a phrase, however, which he never uses), see above, note 76 and further: “C’est une grande peste qui regne aujourd’huy et au plus apparens. Dieu par sa grace les vueille illuminer, à ce qu’ilz se congnoissent estre vraiz serfz de Jesus, en qui avons nostre bien eureuse liberté. Car, comme il dict, nous serons vraiement livrés quant le bon Jesus nous delivrera: qui sera quant captiverons notre liberal arbitre à la volonté divine et dirons avec Monsieur sainct Pol que nous ne sommes de nous comme de nous et que nostre suffisance est de Dieu, qui nous a faict ses ministres ydoines et capables de le servir, selon et en l’estat auquel luy plaist nous appeller, en attribuant ceste idoneité à grace preveniente de Dieu, duquel tout bien, et de nous tout mal. Lequel est sy grand qu’il retarde souvent, assoupist et amoingdrist le bien que nostre Seigneur ouvre en nous, par ce que la racine de la vieille peau, qui est ne noz membres charnels, est encoires repugnante à la loy de l’esperit.” Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 21, 116 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 42). Elsewhere, having noted that Adam and Eve had free will ( franc arbitre) in the Garden, but descended ‘volontairement’ from freedom to servitude, from life to death, Briçonnet develops an argument combining the bondage of the will with adoptionism, a contrast between Mosaic and evangelical law, and a statement reminiscent of Luther’s semper justus, semper peccator: “Combien que encoires ne feust venu le salvateur, il le voit par foy vestant aussy lors la nudité de Adam et Eve de robbes pelicées signiffiant

model for national reform, –

209

Luther that humans could be partially regenerated in this life through grace and faith.83 Good works were the necessary fruit of faith by which it would be known to all.84 If we look for the points that clearly divide Briçonnet from Luther, or more precisely from the perception of Luther’s thought then current in France, we see that the bishop attacks him on a narrow list of positions in his diocesan encyclical of October 1523, chiefly for assailing the ecclesiastical hierarchy, purgatory, and the saints.85 Briçonnet’s most

leur peché estre couvert par foy, actendant leur verité qui couvriroit d’eulx et de leur posterité, par sa doloreuse mort, tout peché. . . . C’est le nouvel homme, duquel fault estre vestu au convi nuptial. Longue a esté, ennuveuse, tant digne expectation ne satisfaisant le vestement pellicé baillé par provision à l’extreme froit; gelant nature humaine captivée tant en la loy de nature que mosaïcque vivant en servitude, actendant la liberté des enfans par foy regeneréz en adoption de filiacion par semence incorruptible et incontaminée, consumée ès cielz, demourant tousjours ce pendant travaillant et labourant en la terre mauldicte, produisant fruict de malediction, espines et chardons.” Briçonnet, Correspondance 2, no. 79, 97–98 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 142). 83 “. . . doivent de present tous chrestiens, estant hors la servitude et malediction de la Loy, aymer, servir et honnorer la bonté divine (non pour la Loy qui n’est (que) pour les trangresseurs): du nombre desquelz ne sont plus comme dellivréz par le debonnaire Jhesus qui les a regneréz et innovéz en luy, faict enfans parfaictz en liberté d’amour pour correspondre, selon leur pouvreté et enfermeté, à l’infinie.” Briçonnet, Correspondance 2, no. 116, 244 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 188). 84 “Par les œuvres on congnoist quelle est la semence de l’esperit et, combien que ypocrisie ou dissimulacion puisse pour quelque temps regner, il est impossible que le fruict ne se montre tost ou tard et se descouvre vital ou pernicieulx.” Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 34, 169 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 59). 85 In his correspondence with Marguerite, Briçonnet frequently mentions Mary but rarely the saints, whom he never describes as intercessors, only mentioning Christ in this role: “. . . le doulx Jesus, est celluy qui incessament moienne et est nostre mediateur vers Dieu, supercelest Pere, pour nous deffendre de la puissance diabolique.” Briçonnet Correspondance 1, no. 38, 210–211 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 63); and again: “. . . entre Dieu et l’espouze [human nature after the fall] n’y a autre mediateur que le doux Jhesus, son espoux et collateral.” Briçonnet Correspondance 2, no. 112, 199 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 182). Veissière argues in a note to this passage: “D’après Becker (Idées, 354) cette affirmation du Christ, unique médiateur, excluerait pour Briçonnet l’intercession de la Vierge et des saints, non mentionnée par ailleurs dans la Correspondance. Cet argument a silentio est excessif et se trouve contredit par ce que Becker écrit (à juste titre) quelques lignes plus loin, reconnaissant la ‘dignité toute exceptionnelle de Marie pour Briçonnet.’ Jésus-médiateur unique, oui. L’intercession des humains (les saints, la Vierge) se situe à un autre niveau et ne saurait lui porter aucun préjudice.” Veissière is correct in this regard, Briçonnet certainly defended the doctrine of Purgatory as well as the invocation of the Saints and Mary in his second synodal letter of 15 October 1523: “. . . quelques personnes, . . . ont osé prétendre et prêcher, au mépris de la vérité évangélique, que le Purgatoire n’existe pas, et que, par conséquent, il ne faut pas prier pour les morts, ni invoquer la très sainte vierge Marie et les Saints.” Herminjard 1, no. 78, 156–158; 15).

210

chapter six – the meaux experiment ii

significant difference from German reformers was his insistence on obedience to the church, however flawed it might be. Notably, Briçonnet and Marguerite’s first significant dispute would be about whether to respect a corrupt prelate’s right to license preachers. The essential point here is that, in his call for church reform, Briçonnet demanded the selection of good prelates, defined as those who were imbued with evangelical doctrine, which centered on an essentially Pauline understanding of soteriology. Practically, he expected them to preach and teach this doctrine. As a model, he had established an innovative system of preaching circuits in his diocese, and his helpers were supplying it with an appropriate, new literature, beginning with the translation of the Scriptures. As for the traditional cult, liturgy, and devotional practices, Briçonnet gave very few indications as to what he might have changed or added. His promotion of indulgences in 1519–1520, his defense of purgatory and the saints in October 1523, as well as his subsequent introduction of a procession of the Holy Sacrament in 1527 and a liturgy for the feast of the Visitation of Mary in 1528,86 show that he was conservative in these matters. His soteriology did not prompt him to reassess the traditional cult. Evidently, he did not think that the usual modes of lay piety were misleading people into trusting in their own good works for salvation. Compared to Lefèvre, who openly denounced “false religious practices,” Briçonnet hardly mentions such concerns in his letters to Mar-

Briçonnet’s public defense, one coming on the heels of the Sorbonne’s attacks, however, is ambiguous, leaving open the question how the saints were to be ‘invoked’: either prayed to directly as efficacious intercessors or merely held up as holy and inspiring examples of true faith and penitence, which is the way in which Lefèvre and the other Fabrists interpreted the proper use of their cult. In his private correspondence with Marguerite, Briçonnet completely disregards the saints as intercessors, diverging radically from contemporary religious practice as well as the express doctrines of conservative Parisian theologians at whose views of penance and salvation, not Luther’s, he takes aim in his letters to Marguerite. To note the contrast consider what a Franciscan from Geneva, Jean Gacy, wrote in 1524 in defense of the faith: “Nous scavons bien comme disent docteurs/Que les bons sainctz sont vrays mediateurs/Pour implorer la divine clemence/Et obtenir pardon de nostre offence/Affin que tout vienne à confusion/Il [Luther] veult tollir leur deprecation.” Jean Gacy, Trialogue nouveau contenant l’expression des erreurs de Martin Luther [Geneva: Wigand Koeln], 1 October 1524. Briçonnet believed in purgatory but it did not function in his thought on redemption. He only mentions it in one passage, when describing the conscience-wracked pain felt by the soul that loves God when contemplating the full horror of its alienating sins. This he describes as the greatest pain in purgatory. Briçonnet, Correspondance 2, no. 118, 268 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 190). 86 Veissière, Guillaume Briçonnet, 382–386.

model for national reform, –

211

guerite. The abuse of images was brought up at the Council of Sens in 1522, perhaps by Briçonnet, but, as in his earlier diocesan measures, the chief concerns of the council were fiscal and administrative problems among the clergy. In practice, Briçonnet was more concerned about solving administrative problems than purifying the cult. Both issues were, in any case, ancillary to what he and Lefèvre felt was the main goal, reintroducing the spirit of truth by establishing bons pasteurs and spreading the gospel via the vernacular Scriptures and preaching. These measures, which he so often discussed with Marguerite, must have formed the chief items in the articles that Briçonnet and Lefèvre proposed in the fall of 1522. The Meaux Articles Tested: The Election of Artus Fillon In the summer heat of 1522, it certainly might have appeared that the court had been won over to the Meaux platform, but this was not to be. During the period Briçonnet and Marguerite were campaigning for the selection of able prelates, the court exerted pressure on the cathedral chapter of Senlis to select as bishop Artus Fillon,87 a close friend of Briçonnet and leading figure in episcopal reform circles. Leading courtiers, including Anne de Montmorency, Jean Brinon (president of the Parlement of Rouen and also Marguerite’s chancellor in Alençon), Étienne Poncher (archbishop of Sens), as well as Guillaume Briçonnet were dispatched to secure his election.88 Briçonnet and Marguerite had promoted Fillon’s candidacy, no doubt, as a trial run of their episcopal reform program.89 Marguerite

87 Fillon’s predecessor, Jean Calveau, a trusted servant of Marguerite and Francis I, died in June 1522. Though nominated by the king, Fillon had to fight off a rival candidate elected by the chapter; “Nominatus a rege [Fillon], an prius electus a capitulo, ut scribunt Sammarthani, Robertum abbatem Caroliloci contulit, qui esset episcopatus Silvanectensis, cuius acceptus responsione 9 VII 1522 . . .” Gallia Christiana 10, col. 1440. Saulnier 1977, no. 74, specifies that “Cet ami de Briçonnet [Fillon] devient évêque de Senlis, non sans une pression précise de François Ier sur le chapitre: ses lettres du 31 août et du 10 septembre aux dits chanoines. Il est élu le 25 septembre, et dès le 28 le roi écrit au même chapitre pour le remercier de sa compréhension.” 88 Briçonnet had been sent by the king to help elect and eventually to consecrate Fillon. See Veissière, Guillaume Briçonnet, 181–182, and source in note 87 below. 89 Jourda, Répertoire, nos. 74 [28 September]; 78.1 [11 October]; 81.1 [22 October]; Marguerite thanked Montmorency—already an arbiter of prelacies—for helping with the election of Artus Fillon to the bishopric of Senlis. Early the following year, on 28 February 1523, Marguerite asked Montmorency to send her news of Artus Fillon’s Lenten sermons and to be remembered to him (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 100).

212

chapter six – the meaux experiment ii

had been writing letters on Fillon’s behalf and had taken an interest in his preaching, just as Briçonnet had instructed her to do when vetting candidates for prelacies. Fillon’s curriculum vitae made him an eminently suitable candidate to serve as the model in any campaign for the selection of bons pasteurs. He had graduated first in his class from the Faculty of Theology of Paris (1504) and served as the vicar-general of the reforming Cardinals Georges I and II d’Amboise in the archbishopric of Rouen in the 1510s. His Speculum curatorum (c. 1509) strengthened his reputation as a leading clerical reformer. Reprinted thirteen times to 1530, it was required reading in the dioceses of conscientious bishops like Luigi Canossa.90 On the face of it, there would seem to have been enough about Fillon to please not just reforming bishops like Briçonnet but even conservatives like Beda. Moreover, the court evidently saw in him a very useful prelate. Francis I’s ministers had had their eye on him for some time. In 1519, royal officers reported favorably on Fillon’s recommendations to the Estates of Normandy regarding royal taxes.91 During his four-year tenure, Fillon fulfilled the promise Briçonnet and Marguerite saw in him. He strove to improve religious life and training in his diocese. His 1522 statutes for Senlis (published in 1526) later served as a basis for those of Troyes (1529). He oversaw the reform of several monastic houses in Senlis and founded a school. He also composed for his clergy a treatise on administering the sacraments, Tractatus de sacramentis ministrandis (1522), and penance, Tractatus de sacramento penitentie (1526), which was translated and reprinted twice in books of hours (1529 and 1537). In 1524 he financed the publication of his diocese’s Missal.92 Like other doctors from the Faculty of Theology of Paris, he provided for religious causes in his will, leaving 1200 l.t. to the canons of Senlis for an obit Mass, 200 l.t. to the hôtel-dieu, 200 l.t. to the collège of Senlis for a house, and an unspecified sum to endow four scholarships at the College of Harcourt in Paris for students from Senlis and his home town of Verneuil.

90 For the following biographical information, see Farge, Biographical Register, no. 184, 165–167, and Saulnier 1977, notes to nos. 73 and 74, pp. 207–209. 91 Fillon sat in the Estates of Normandy as a representative from 1506 to 1522. CAF 5, 491, no. 17205: “. . . pour informer sur les propos tenus aux États de Normandie par Artus Fillon [October 1519], 5 déc. 1519. Original de l’information faicte par [Jean] Brinon.” 92 Moreau 3, no. 718.

model for national reform, –

213

Fillon’s episcopacy provides a glimpse of what might have been had Briçonnet’s proposals been enacted. Though the crown nominated several other worthy prelates like him after the Concordat, in general most of its candidates seem to have been no better qualified or reformminded than those chosen under the terms of the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges. If anything, pluralism increased.93 Lacking an effective governing body, without strong leadership from the crown the Gallican church never had and never could serve as a conduit for a national religious renewal. The diocesan reforms that did take place depended upon the qualities and inclinations of men who were placed in control of France’s rich prelacies. Their reformist tendencies, however, were incidental to the reasons of state and patronage for which they were selected by the crown. Thus, from then through the Wars of Religion, while the majority of bishops and abbots remained loyal to the Catholic Church, collectively they offered no solutions to France’s religious strife. In the absence of centralized control, several leading prelates were even able to side with the evangelical and Protestant causes. Only late in the century, after the introduction of the reforms of Trent under royal patronage, did pluralism cease and bishops see to effective changes in the parishes. During his reign, Francis I backed neither conservative nor evangelical renewal programs with any vigor or consistency.

The Cold War Heats Up, May–December 1523 In this third phase of the Meaux group’s career, authorities in Paris waged a frontal assault on them in the name of extirpating heresy. Passing to the defensive, the Meaux-Marguerite alliance came under new

93 In analyzing the impact of the Concordat, scholars have principally sought to answer two questions: Did the social background of prelates change? Did pluralism increase or decrease? That prelates continued to be drawn from the elites, with perhaps a slightly increased preference for noblemen of the sword over those of the robe, is, whether expected or not, rather beside the point that concerned late-medieval reformers as well as those of Briçonnet’s generation: Were prelates on the whole better or worse pasteurs after the Concordat? Marilyn Edelstein and Frederic Baumgartner have systematically addressed the first two questions. See their works listed in the bibliography, as well as David Potter’s synthesis in A History of France, 219–231. Marc Venard, Nicole Lemaître, and Michel Veissière see evidence for an improving episcopacy in the early part of the century. See Venard, ed., De la Réforme à la Réformation (1450–1530) vol. 7 in Histoire du Christianisme des origines à nos jours (Paris: Desclée, 1994), and Lemaître’s and Veissière’s works cited in chapter 5 notes 15 and 16.

214

chapter six – the meaux experiment ii

pressure, which caused the first discord within its own ranks. Conservatives attacked them through judicial proceedings, public preaching, and a spate of anti-heresy books.94 Though Marguerite and Briçonnet were able to muster royal protection, conservatives effectively curtailed their influence by fixing in the public’s mind the frightening specter of royal support for heresy. Accordingly, since the conservatives’ measures drove events, we need to analyze their campaign the better to assess the evangelicals’ response. We should recall the context in which this episode unfolded. Quite apart from the fray over heresy, those were tumultuous times. Floods, frosts, hailstorms, crop failures, price hikes, heavy new taxes, bandits, pestilence, Charles of Bourbon’s treason, and above all the war with the emperor rocked the lives of ordinary folk with a series of crushing calamities and fear of more.95 If chroniclers and prognosticators did not see these events as apocalyptic signs, they certainly considered the times to be remarkably dire, and increasingly, following the lead of conservative clerics in Paris, they were coming to believe that the new

94 When advising Louise later that summer, Beda reminded her that the faculty had been waging a sweeping campaign against heresy for some time with “predications, disputations, livres, écrits, contre icelles doctrines, et autres actes Scholastiques soient à ce utiles, qu’il s’en fait chacun jour par les Supposts de notre Faculté,” but that all these measures had not been enough to stop the spread of heresy. See d’Argentré, Collectio judiciorum 2, pt. 1, 3. 95 Four chroniclers from Paris tell much the same tale of woe: Lalanne, Bourgeois; Pierre Driart, Chronique parisienne de Pierre Driart chambrier de Saint Victor, 1522–1535, ed. Fernand Bournon, in Mémoires de la Société de l’histoire de Paris et de l’Île-de-France 22 (1895): 97–178; Cronique du roy Françoys Premier de ce nom, ed. Georges Guiffrey (Paris: Renouard, 1860); and Nicolas Veroris who wrote: “En ce temps estoit tenu le reaulme de France avoir esté et estre persecuté de toutes les plaiez et persecutions que Dieu a acoustumé envoyer sur le peuple sur lequel il a l’indignation . . . [next follows a long list of the plagues visited on France]. Oultre, et qui pys est, survient l’erreur et venimeuse et dangereuse doctrine de Luter avec commotions, pilleries et mengeries de peuple, foulé de tous costé de tailles et larrecins de gens d’armes.” Nicolas Versoris, Le livre de raison de Nicolas Versoris, avocat au Parlement de Paris (1515–1530), ed. Gustave Fagniez, Mémoires de la Société de l’histoire de Paris et de l’Île-de-France 12 (1885), 99–222; published as a separate offprint (Paris, 1885); see esp. no. 163 [end of June 1524], 53–54. Two reporters, one from Metz, the other from Le Puy-de-Dôme in Auvergne, recount similarly hard times during these war years. J.-F. Huguenin, ed., Les Chroniques de la ville de Metz, 900–1552 (Metz: S. Lamort, 1838). Augustin Chassaing, ed., Le Livre de Podio ou chroniques d’Étienne Médicis, bourgeois du Puy (Le Puy-en-Lay: M.-P. Marchessov, 1874).

model for national reform, –

215

religious ferment led by the Meaux group was causing contemporary evils to reach a crescendo.96 The Conservative Party’s Attack In May 1523, the conservatives opened their campaign against heresy when members of Parlement of Paris seized a rich cache of Lutheran books in the lodgings of a prominent nobleman-scholar and officer of the royal court, Louis de Berquin.97 His library contained works by Erasmus, Luther, Melanchthon, and other ‘heretics,’ some of which he had translated, as well as other suspect writings from his own pen. On 6 June, having been prompted by Pierre Lizet, second president of the parlement and a leading conservative, the Faculty of Theology initiated a sweeping inquisition against heretics and their works, which they pursued with vigor and courage over the next six months.98 In the inaugural session of 6 June, they drew up a docket of cases for investigation, including the suspect works in Berquin’s library and, at Lizet’s petition, the sermons of Pierre Caroli and Martial Mazurier, two members of the faculty who had been preaching at Meaux. In the 96 Denis Crouzet has argued for the subsequent rise of apocalyptic fervor in France as a key factor in animating bloodthirsty violence during the Wars of Religion. See his Les guerriers de dieu. The seeds of this development are apparent in the 1520. 97 The principal sources for the Conservative Party’s 1523 heresy hunt are: Clerval Registres, 354–425, esp. nn. 18, 19, 35, 37, 51, and 60 on pp. 415–422, which contain brief digests of the several concurrent investigations; and, for the faculty’s final censures and related documents, d’Argentré, Collectio judiciorum 1, pt. 2, 374–379 (‘Meaux’ articles), 403–404, (Arnaud de Bronosse [Brouossio]), 404–406 (Berquin), 406–410 (Luther, Lutheran books, and Melanchthon); vol. 2, xi (Lefèvre and Berquin), xiii (Melanchthon), xiv–xx (Luther and followers [Meaux group]), xx and 2 (correspondence with Louise of Savoy on combating heresy). Important overviews of the 1523 Berquin investigation, which use additional sources, include: Nathaniel Weiss, “Lettre de la sacrée Faculté de théologie de Paris à Guillaume Petit, Évêque de Troyes, Confesseur du roi, au sujet de Berquin (1523),” BSHPF 53 (1904), 209–211; idem, “Louis de Berquin, son premier Procès et sa Rétractation d’après quelques documents inédits (1523),” BSHPF 67 (1918), 162–183; Emile V. Telle’s introduction to Desiderius Erasmus, trans. Louis de Berquin, Declamation des louenges de mariage [1525], ed. Émile V. Telle, TLF 225 (Geneva: Droz, 1976), 3–112; Claude Longeon’s introduction to Louis de Berquin(?), La farce des Théologastres, ed. Claude Longeon, TLF 366 (Geneva: Droz, 1989), 9–40; Farge, Orthodoxy, 170–178; and Imbart, Origines 3, 196–202, 227–230. 98 James Farge describes the faculty’s new proceedings as an “unofficial inquisition.” See Orthodoxy, 169 and n. 37. Imbart de la Tour maintained essentially the same position, though he stressed more strongly than Farge that the “parti intransigeant” within the faculty led by Beda may have dominated but that it certainly did not represent all the doctors; Origines 3, 225–235.

216

chapter six – the meaux experiment ii

meetings of 15–19 June, the doctors decided to pursue what appeared to them as a heretical alliance between Berquin, Meaux, and Wittenberg. Scheduled for investigation were: Berquin’s manuscript defense of Luther; Lefèvre d’Étaples’ Commentary on the Gospels; the Meaux preachers’ doctrines; as well as the works of Erasmus, Luther, and other unnamed Lutheran heretics in Berquin’s library. The Faculty of Theology pursued this agenda through December in a series of concurrent censure proceedings against Berquin (June–August), Lefèvre (June–August), translations of Scripture, which targeted but did not name Lefèvre (August, October), Caroli and Mazurier (August– December), Luther and Melanchthon (June, October), Erasmus (June, November), and Arnaud de Bronosse (July), an Augustinian doctor and member of the Faculty of Theology. Meanwhile, conservatives in the parlement stood ready to prosecute heretics once the faculty had passed theological sentence. For their part, on 23 November, they tried a hermit associated with the Meaux group, Jean Guibert of Livry, on charges that he had claimed the Mass should be replaced with readings from the Bible, condemned prayers for the dead, and denounced the custom of paying for masses.99 Never before or after did the faculty meet so often or with such single-minded purpose as between June and December 1523.100 Why did conservatives take such strong, indeed frenetic action? Who was driving events, the heretics or their pursuers? The answers to these questions will largely determine our assessment of the pace and extent of the Reformation in France in the early 1520s and help us gauge the role of heresy in the continuing struggle over the Concordat. Opportunity, means, and motive: not only crimes but even judicial proceedings require them. As for opportunity, the seizure of Berquin’s books provided conservatives with a high-profile occasion to take aim against the leaders of what they believed was a swelling crowd of heretics. Berquin’s library brought together in microcosm

99 Doucet, Étude sur le gouvernement, vol. 1, 343–4, citing AN X2A 76, fols. 3–14. The first proposition attributed to Guibert, namely that Bible-reading should replace the Mass, resonates to a certain extent with Briçonnet’s advice to Marguerite that she approach reading the Scriptures just like preparing to receive the host. Both dictums prescribe the substitution of the Scriptures for the sacrament of the Eucharist, in the first literally in the liturgy, in the second by analogy. Both also elevate lay contemplation of the Scriptures and understanding of the gospel as preconditions for correctly participating in the sacrament. See note 105. 100 See chapter 4, notes 7–9.

model for national reform, –

217

the authors—most notably Luther and Erasmus—and the ideas that conservatives saw as a common front uniting Lefèvre and his followers with Lutherans abroad. As for means, after he was elected to the newly revived office of syndic in 1520, Noël Beda had the administrative powers with which to wage a sustained and focused campaign.101 When Pierre Lizet presented the Faculty of Theology with Berquin’s heretical books and encouraged it to hunt down heretics promising of parlementary support, conservatives had the makings of a show trial and the religious authority and secular power needed to exploit the Berquin case as the opening salvo in a wide-ranging campaign against other arch-heretics.102 As for motive, in 1523 conservatives were not spurred to action in response to some stinging provocation by the ‘novateurs,’ as they would be by the Placards in 1534.103 The Meaux group was hardly stirring the waters. Following the rejection of their reform agenda in late 1522, Briçonnet and Marguerite had not been in contact since February 1523. Their collaboration only revived in June in direct response to the conservative faction’s maneuvers. While Lefèvre’s Commentary on the Gospels clearly irritated conservatives, the aggravation was of long-standing: it had been in print for over a year. Nor were the doctors reacting to news about his coming translation of the Gospels, which was published on 8 June, two days after they began their investigation. While Marguerite had been anticipating its publication since January,104 only on 1 August, a few days after Marguerite had received her 101

Imbart, Origines 3, 225–226. To proceed against those in orders, the parlement required the further cooperation of an ecclesiastical judge, such as the bishop of Paris in the case of Louis de Berquin. 103 Roget Doucet’s assessment that the year 1523 marked a significant turning point in the early ‘Reformation’ in France is correct but not his claim that the novateurs were the protagonists. Rather, as will be shown below, conservatives, albeit nominally in reaction to the novateurs, escalated a conflict that clerical and political elites had previously waged among themselves over evangelicals’ tempered reform program into a high-stakes public battle by successfully painting evangelicals as revolutionary ‘Lutheran’ heretics: “La lutte cependant changeait de caractère: l’année 1523 nous montre une recrudescence d’activité de la part des partisans des idées nouvelles, à laquelle les défenseurs de l’orthodoxie répondirent en modifiant leurs méthodes de répression.” Doucet, Étude sur le Gouvernement 1, 335 (emphasis added). 104 During the course of her biblical instruction by Lefèvre, Vatable, and Roussel via Briçonnet’s letters (January 1523), Marguerite encouraged the bishop to have their translation printed and distributed as soon as it was ready: “. . . suis contraincte, tant par ce que l’on m’a dict que l’experience qui m’en donne la fiebvre que avez eue, vous prier avoir regard que le travail que prenes d’apareiller [préparer, apprêter] la viande à voz brebis ne vous retarde (quant elle sera preste) la distribution. Car vous sçavez 102

218

chapter six – the meaux experiment ii

first copies in late July, did the doctors begin investigating the danger posed by new versions of the Bible in Latin and French. Apparently, the Meaux group had attempted to conceal the existence of Lefèvre’s translation from the faculty—evidently with scant success—for when Marguerite sent a copy to her Aunt Philiberte in late July, she warned her to guard it lest it fall into evil hands. This remark would not make sense if Lefèvre’s translation of the Gospels was already publicly for sale and it had come to the attention of the faculty.105 Moreover, Caroli and Mazurier’s preaching at Meaux could hardly have been causing great scandal (except to those on the lookout for it like Lizet). Contemporary journalists, who reported the heretical preaching of the “Lutherans of Meaux” in 1525, make no mention of their sermons in 1523. Just as telling, the faculty had to form a special commission in order to gather evidence against them, or rather, as the Meaux group would later protest, in order to create evidence against them. Nor does Berquin seem to have provoked the faculty or parlement prior to the seizure of his library. His response, however, may well have irritated conservatives itching for a fight. By agreeing to have his books reviewed by the faculty, he had accepted what he thought would be a theological duel. Yet conservatives had not issued a challenge to debate, but a summons to submit to censure. Berquin’s writings, including his Apologia for Luther,106 and his persistent attempts to refute the doctrop myeulx que moy que sans sel n’y aura goust.” Briçonnet Correspondance, no. 50, 15 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 90). 105 “Ma tante, au partir de Parys pour conduire le Roy, Monsr. de Meaux m’envoya les Evangilles en françoys, translatées par Fabry mot à mot, lesquelles il [Briçonnet] dist que devons lire en aussy grande révérance et préparacyon pour recevoir l’esperit de Dieu qu’il nous a lessé en sa Ste lectre comme quant nous l’alons recevoir sacrementalemant, et, pour ce que Monsr de Vileroy m’a promys les vous faire tenir, j’ay bien voulu l’en prier, car ces paroles ne doivent point tomber en mauvaises mains, vous pryant, ma tante, que, si par elles Dieu vous fait quelque grace, que n’y veullés oblier, la plus que toute vostre bonne niepce et seur, MARGUERITE.” In Marguerite de Navarre, Heptaméron des nouvelles de très illustre Princesse Marguerite d’Angoulême, Reine de Navarre, ed. A. Le Roux de Lincy and Anatole de Montaiglon, 4 vols. (Paris: Eudes, 1880), vol. 4, 185–187; 187, transcription with facsimile of the letter (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 105). 106 “Apologia . . . in cuius principio dicit ipse de Berquin auctor, esse quinquaginta octo folia, est Sedi Apostolicae contrarius, contumeliosus, sacris generalibus Consiliis plane derogans, Schismaticus atque perniciosam Lutheri haeresim manifestè afferens et defendens.” d’Argentré, Collectio judiciorum 1, pt. 2, 405A–B. Berquin’s papers included over a dozen additional heretical works including several ‘apologetic’ compositions by Berquin, Latin tracts by Luther (e.g., De captivitate Babylonica and De abroganda Missa), Melanchthon (Loci communes), Andreas Karlstadt, et al., as well as Berquin’s French translations of ‘Lutheran’ works, e.g., one described as “Liber . . . continens

model for national reform, –

219

tors and lawyers reviewing his case, suggest that he believed he could prove one could follow Luther and other novateurs a long way without falling into heresy.107 Rather than a riposte to flagrant provocation, the conservatives’ 1523 campaign began as a calculated maneuver. Signals from the royal court and parlement indicated the time was ripe to snuff out the leaders among those whom they regarded as Lutheran heretics. During the previous Lenten season, Louise of Savoy had attended the sermons of Guillaume Petit.108 Evidently, the king’s confessor had regained whatever favor he may have lost by denouncing d’Arande a few months earlier.109 On 29 April, in the wake of the court’s attendance at his sermons, Petit appeared before his cathedral chapter with a mandate from the king: to refute and eradicate a great many errors, foreign to the orthodox faith, which are spreading throughout France . . . of a certain Master Martin Luther of Saxony.110

rationes propter quas Lutherus Decretales caeterosque Juris Canonici libros igni publicè tradidit,” which was probably a translation of Luther’s Quare papae et discipulorum eius libri combusti sint (1520) WA 7, 154, 157, Ulrich von Hutten’s La tyrade Romaine [Trias Romana], and Erasmus’ Le Paradis du Pape Jule [Julius exclusus]. The latter work had been published at Paris circa 1518 by Jean de Gourmont; see Brigitte Moreaux, “Une impression clandestine à Paris au temps du concile de Sens, l’Epistola Luciferi,” 343–359; 346; no. 32, 351. For the identification of some of these titles see, Weiss, “Louis de Berquin,” 169–170. 107 “Berquin . . . a dit qu’il ne veult empescher que ceux de la Faculté ne les [his books] voyent, mais il a requis qu’il soit présent pour les lire et donner à entendre à quelle fin tout a esté faict, à ce que, par faute d’estre bien advertis, on ne puisse calomnier ce qu’il a faict, ou y adjoucter et varier,” AN X1A 1525, fol. 203v cited by Weiss, “Louis de Berquin, son premier procès,’ 167. Émile Telle argues persuasively that like other evangelicals Berquin admired Luther’s thought, but not his ways. See Berquin, Declamation, 18–30, esp. 20 and 24–26 and n. 21, citing Berquin’s defense of Luther’s views of faith and works in a letter to Erasmus, 31 October 1528, Allen 7, no. 2066, 525, ll. 68–74. 108 As reported by Marguerite in a letter to Anne de Montmorency dated March 1523. See Génin 1, no. 7, 153–135 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 102). 109 Petit was, as noted above, a moderate Catholic and a chief supporter of ‘Erasmian’ biblical humanism at court, and had not appreciated the personal consequences of the Faculty of Theology’s heavy-handed swatting at d’Arande. Nevertheless, the doctors considered him sympathetic enough to their fight against the ‘Lutheran’ heresy to appeal for his intervention at court from then into the next decade. See Farge, Orthodoxy, 156, 254–256. 110 Imbart, Origines 3, 208–209, citing AD Aube G 1282, Delib. capitul., fol. 4 (29 April 1523). Petit’s anti-heresy commission thus coincided with Briçonnet’s first revocation of preachers’ licenses in Meaux.

220

chapter six – the meaux experiment ii

This royal order as well as Louise’s favor could have only been welcome signs to conservatives that the court had taken a turn to the religious ‘right.’111 Within days of Petit’s proclamation, the Parlement of Paris ordered the inspection of the bookshops of Paris. For unknown reasons, the royal prosecutor pursued his investigation into Berquin’s private study. Perhaps he was following a paper trail from the print shop to Berquin’s door.112 Parlement was alerted to the discovery of the suspect works in his home on 13 May and ordered them to be examined by the Faculty of Theology. This launched the 1523 summer season of heresy hunting. Defensive Maneuvers and Battle Results In the judicial cut and thrust of the next months, conservatives carried their attack forward while the royal court parried blows falling on their protégés. Several scholars have provided able accounts of individual skirmishes between the court and the alliance of the faculty and parlement during that six-month contest.113 We want to demonstrate here that, while by no means the only figures involved, Marguerite and Guillaume Briçonnet played leading roles in orchestrating the court’s response.

111 Heller and others argue that French policy was still hostile to Rome during the summer of 1523, during which time the court threatened the pope with the specter of giving further support to the novateurs. As all scholars note, Francis I did not feel the need to coordinate his domestic religious policy with the image of it that he tried to project abroad (e.g., his crackdown after the Placards and simultaneous wooing of the Protestant princes in 1534–1535). In dealing with Rome in 1523, the specter of heresy was but one potential and rather weak arm in Francis’s diplomatic arsenal, which included marching on Italy, setting up a rival pope, or, most effective and most to the liking of Gallican sentiment at home, the threat of stopping the flow of gold to the curia. It was precisely the latter menace that Adrian VI feared in the summer of 1523. See Heller, “Panorama religieux,” in Correspondance 2, 7–9. 112 The Faculty of Theology suspected that Berquin was readying some of his writings and translations of ‘heretical’ works for publication. Their condemnation, addressed to parlement, alludes to this likelihood: “Demum cum proximis diebus viri cuiusdam nobilis Ludovici de Berquin codices quidam scripti et libri ad vestram curiam essent delati, quod per illos ipse diceretur perversa Lutheri dogmata iam dudum damnat instaurare ac defensare, necnon in linguam vernaculam illa transferendo, aut in illarum approbationem sermone Gallico novos libros edendo.” d’Argentré, Collectio judiciorum 2, xii, col. A. Berquin may already have been on the conservatives’ hit list for his criticisms of the doctors during their censure hearings on Luther (1518–1521) as well as his publication of a lost satirical tract; see Weiss, “Louis de Berquin, son premier procès,” 166–167, and Berquin, Declamation, 22–23. 113 See Clerval, Registres, as in note 97; the Farge, Orthodoxy, 130–131, 169–170; Imbart, Origines 3, 223–235; and Weiss, “Louis de Berquin, son premier procès.”

model for national reform, –

221

Taking stock, we know that the court intervened on behalf of Berquin, Lefèvre, Arnaud de Bronosse, and Erasmus, as well as in the censure hearings on new translations of the Scriptures. The court effectively quashed all these investigations, except the one against Arnaud de Bronosse. As a member of the faculty, he was fully within its jurisdiction. Queen Claude and her almoner, who was Bronosse’s superior in the Augustinian Order, could do no more than diminish the severity of the terms of his forced retraction.114 In the cases in which the court did not intervene, such as those against Luther, Melanchthon, Caroli, and Mazurier, as well as the trial of Jean Guibert, conservatives handed down speedy convictions. Despite Berquin’s best efforts the books of the German “heretics” were beyond redemption and on 8 August 1523 they were condemned and burned on a pyre, whose flames he was meant to share. Caroli and Mazurier, both doctors subject to the discipline of the faculty, were sentenced to retract the positions ascribed to them. Guibert was condemned to be enclosed in a monastery. Mazurier accepted his sentence, but over the next several years Caroli and the Hermit appealed their convictions. With help from Marguerite and other friends, Caroli kept his freedom and Jean Guibert was eventually absolved.115 We can see the hands of Briçonnet and Marguerite pulling the strings that led to the court’s successful interventions. First, it is striking that their correspondence revived in early June 1523 in frantic response to the conservative’s campaign.116 In the opening letter of the series,

114

Clerval, Registres, 368–370, 417 n. 35. See chapter 8 below for Marguerite’s long campaign in support of Caroli, and the use to which the network put news of Guibert’s acquittal. 116 In a poor editorial decision, the editors have obscured the clear interruption of Marguerite and Briçonnet’s correspondence in February and its sudden revival in June. For this new phase in their correspondence, the first letter in the June sequence in their edition is no. 56 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 106), Briçonnet to Marguerite. It contains references to two earlier letters, nos. 56A and 56B (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 98 and 98bis), from Marguerite to Briçonnet, which they date to sometime in Lent. Letter no. 56 is actually found transcribed after letter no. 58 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 110) in the manuscript, which is dated to after 18 June. The editors agree with Becker that this no. 56 interrupts the responsive links between letters nos. 58 and 59 (Jourda, Répertoire, nos. 110 and 111) where it falls in the manuscript and is thus misplaced. These three letters and two more letters, nos. 57 and 60 (Jourda, Répertoire, nos. 107 and 113), are all undated and come before letter no. 61 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 115), which is dated 24 June in the manuscript. Now no. 57, the first of this series in the manuscript is obviously an immediate response to the breaking crisis of the heresy investigations, which opened on 6 June, and thus dates to a few days after. Letter 56, which refers to two lost letters from Marguerite (56A and 56B) is a digression on the theme of “repos en Dieu” and contains no obvious references to events or to the 115

222

chapter six – the meaux experiment ii

Briçonnet sent a hurried and excited reply to news about the faculty’s investigation, encouraging Marguerite to have the court to take firm action: Madame, thanks to the letter of M. the Protonotary [Bourdailles], I have understood you and your mother’s concern for our Lord’s affair. He [God] is a gentleman [gentil homme] and will make a fitting reply by enflaming your ardor for Him . . . . Grieved that He has been offended without having given offense, you ought to give thanks to Him that He has decided to use you to lead those poor erring souls back from their blind ignorance to knowledge of Him! That such people should complain! I implore you, pray for them and all their kind that they might turn to face the sun and be illuminated.117

Seeing the Sorbonne’s investigation as an assault on their efforts to promote the gospel, Briçonnet described God as the chief victim who feasts or lectionary readings between their last exchange in February, through Lent, or anytime before June to justify putting it before no. 57. The only concrete bit of data in letter no. 56 is the conveyance of Artus Fillon’s regards to Marguerite. Now Fillon and Briçonnet are known to have been working together to defend evangelicals in Paris during mid-June (see below). This is an additional fact that makes the decision to place no. 56 before 57 not just arbitrary but wrong-headed. Letter 56 should be retained, as indicated by the manuscript’s order, at some indeterminate time after their correspondence recommenced circa 6 June (letter no. 57) for two reasons: first, because the mention of Fillon probably puts the letter circa 16–18 June, when he was active with Briçonnet in Paris monitoring the faculty’s investigations; and, second, because just as he does in no. 56, Briçonnet also mentions letters by Marguerite, which are not extant, in letter no. 58, which suggests their close proximity: (“. . . comme par sa grace saigement en et par luy escirpvez, Madame, . . .” Briçonnet, Correspondance 2, no. 58, 40 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 110). Thus letter nos. 56A and 56B should be considered a witness to other missives from Marguerite to Briçonnet during this highly charged period of 6–24 June 1523, instead of, as per the editors during Lent 1523. Marguerite’s lost letters, like the Protonotary’s lost letters on behalf of Marguerite (mentioned in letter no. 57 [Jourda, Répertoire, no. 107], see below), formed part of the same frenetic exchange, but have not survived. 117 “Madame, par lettres de Monsieur le prothonotaire, ay entendu la solicitude de Madame et de vous pour l’affaire de nostre Seigneur. Il est gentil homme et ne sera sans revenche [revenche, revenge or a reply to an accusation] acroissant son feu en voz cœurs, . . . Que debvez, en ennuy de ce qu’il est offencé sans offencer, le mercier qu’il luy plaist, en et par vous, reduire à sa congnoissance la cecité des pauvres esgaréz! Que ceulz sont à plaindre! Lesquelz et tous leurs semblables vous supplie avoir en voz prieres à ce qu’ilz se retournent au soleil pour estre illuminéz, sans oublier, s’il vous plaist, le capitaine des aveugles et indignes ministres, Vostre inutil filz.” Briçonnet, Correspondance 2, no. 57, 38–39 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 107). The editors sensibly follow Becker’s intuition that this letter refers to the Faculty of Theology’s inquest against Lefèvre, Berquin, and Erasmus. They fail to realize that “Monsieur le prothonotaire,” whom Briçonnet and Marguerite frequently mention thereafter as a go-between, is Marguerite’s almoner “le prothenotaire Bourdailles,” Lefranc, Comptes (1524), 59; cf. Jourda, Répertoire, no. 8.

model for national reform, –

223

would inspire Marguerite to avenge Him. In describing God as a “gentil homme,” the bishop was also alluding to him whose injury had offended Him, namely Berquin, who was a ‘gentilhomme,’ that is, a member of the (petite) noblesse and a gentleman on the royal household rolls.118 More broadly, however, l’affaire de Dieu connoted the need to counter the whole scope of the faculty’s investigation. Briçonnet and Marguerite were key organizers of the royal court’s early, tone-setting action. On 16 June, in the faculty’s third meeting, Beda carefully noted the presence of one of Briçonnet and Marguerite’s close associates, Artus Fillon, whom the syndic evidently considered a hostile observer: “nevertheless” (quipped the syndic in the minutes), the faculty proceeded with the business of distributing Berquin’s books for review and condemning his De usu et efficacia missae.119 Beda’s suspicions were well grounded. Two days later, the faculty received a summons from the royal chancellor, Antoine Duprat, to send representatives to hear the king’s pleasure. The following day, the chancellor received the faculty’s delegates flanked by an episcopal commission of trusted prelates: the archbishop of Sens, Étienne Poncher, as well as Bishops Artus Fillon, Guillaume Briçonnet, and Michel Boudet of Langres.120 Duprat informed the delegates that the king would permit the faculty to review but not to censure Lefèvre d’Étaples’ works and instructed them to send suspect articles to the episcopal commission for judgment. Answering Petit’s denunciation of the previous fall, Duprat told the doctors that Michel d’Arande—now clearly designated as Marguerite’s almoner—whose investigation they

118 Both the Bourgeois de Paris and Versoris describe Berquin as a “gentilhomme:” Lalanne, Bourgeois, 169–170; Versoris, no. 119, 34–35. See Algirdas Greimas, Julien and Teresa Mary Keane, Dictionnaire du moyen français: la Renaissance (Paris: Larousse, 1992) for the social connotation of the term. 119 “Die Martis [16.VI.1523] fuit sacra Facultas congregata insequendo conclusiones prius factas super examinandis variis doctrinis, de quibus fiebant graves querimonie et oriebantur plura scandala, quale dicebatur esse scriptum magistri Jacobi Fabri super evangeliis et quedam Erasmi opera et cuiusdam nomine de Berquin. Et illi congregationi affuit reverendus dominus episcopus Silvancectensis magister Arthurus Fillon, doctor eiusdem Facultatis. Materiis autem in medium positis et discussis.” 16 June 1523, Clerval, Registre, 356–357; 356 (emphasis added). De usu et efficacia missae was the last book listed among those deemed to be a composition by Berquin, see d’Argentré, Collectio judiciorum 1, pt. 2, 405A–B; vol. 2, x–xiii. 120 See Clerval, Registre, 358. Boudet very likely had biblical humanist interests since he was the recipient in 1519 of a dedication by Nicolas Bérault, a close friend of Berquin and the future preceptor of Morelet Du Museau, Étienne Dolet, Melchior Wolmar, and the Coligny brothers. See Berquin, Declamation, 16. See further, M. de la Garanderie, “Bérault,” in CE 1, 126–128.

224

chapter six – the meaux experiment ii

were perhaps planning to reopen, rightfully wore the garb of a secular cleric since he was no longer an Augustinian Friar, and that they should leave him in peace.121 Meanwhile, Berquin was challenging the faculty in similar vein, but more aggressively. Instead of adopting the usual procedural stalling tactics available to reluctant defendants, Berquin demanded quick justice. He could be confident since friends at court were covering, perhaps scripting his every maneuver. On 15 June and again on 26 June, he presented letters from Francis I to the faculty authorizing the doctors to extract articles from Berquin’s books in order to show him where they believed he had gone wrong, but in no case to pass sentence.122 As with Lefèvre, they were instructed to send suspect articles to Chancellor Duprat and the episcopal commission for their judgment. With considerable sang-froid, the faculty ignored the king’s letter and sped Berquin’s case to parlement for trial the next day. The same scenario of Berquin seeking to debate with his antagonists, only to be rebuffed and condemned by them, repeated itself in parlement. On 5 August, as his case was being pushed through to the bishop of Paris’s court (where Berquin had to be sentenced since he was in minor clerical orders), Francis I had to send in a company of archers to take him into safe custody and transfer his case to the royal Grand Conseil. As the Bourgeois de Paris related: The king did this to save him, since otherwise he would have been in grave danger of being sentenced to death, for he certainly merited it.123

As these events were unfolding, Briçonnet and Marguerite were corresponding at a feverish pace. Between the faculty’s sessions on 6 June and 24 June, the date of Francis I’s second letter on behalf of Berquin, 121

Clerval, Registre, 358–359. Both letters were discovered and published by Weiss in “Louis de Berquin, son premier procès,” 168–169 and 172–173. 123 “Au dict an 1523, le samedy, huictiesme aoust, furent bruslez plusieurs livres, par l’authorité de la cour de parlement, devant la grande église Nostre-Dame de Paris, qu’avoit faict un gentilhomme, nommé Loys Barquin, seigneur du dict lieu, en Picardie, qui estoit grand clerc; mais il estoit luthérien; lequel avoit esté prisonnier à la conciergerie du Palais à Paris, et depuis rendu à l’evesque de Paris, comme clerc. Et fut ce faict pour les dictz livres estant hérétiques et maulvais contre Dieu et sa glorieuse mère. Depuis fut prisonnier quelque temps à la cour d’église, néantmoins il en fut mis hors de par le Roy, qui estoit près de Meleun, et s’en alloit de là les montz; lequel il envoia quérir par son cappitaine, Frédéric, des archers de sa garde; et fit ce le Roy pour luy saulver la vie, car aultrement il eust esté en grand danger de sa personne d’estre mis à mort par justice, car il l’avoit bien gaigné.” Lalanne, Bourgeois, 169–170. 122

model for national reform, –

225

they exchanged at least nine missives, six of which survive.124 In this exchange, we find Briçonnet sending Artus Fillon’s greetings to Marguerite as well as battle plans to the court via her almoner, asking her to recommend them to the king.125 The bishop was emboldened to make these recommendations after hearing Francis speak encouragingly about the need to manage the doctors of theology: “those who presume and delude themselves that they have the key of divine knowledge.”126 In return, Marguerite reported the good news that Francis I and Louise read his letter with “tears in their eyes” and praised his mystical, literary style, a minor success, which, however, Marguerite recognized was only a small step towards enlisting their support for Briçonnet’s reform plans.127 In closing, Marguerite warned him to temporize: because of their worldly concerns, her mother and brother were still “too green”—a direct reference to the term Briçonnet had used in 1522 to describe the royals’ reluctance then to be inflamed by their program for the reform of the church.128 As in her attempt in September 1522, Marguerite was trying to use Briçonnet’s advice about immediate crises as an opening through which she might induce the other members of the Royal Trinity to promote the evangelicals’ reform agenda. While Briçonnet continued to request her guidance and help at court over the next month,129 Marguerite kept

124

See note 116 above. “La lumiere je quiers et serche, pour tenebres chasser, que vous supplie trèshumblement, Madame, comme indigne ministre, voulloir procurer vers Madame, à la fin que j’escriptz plus amplement à Monsieur le prothonotaire [Bourdailles], qu’il vous plaira ouÿr.” Briçonnet, Correspondance 2, no. 56, 35–38 (Jourda, Répertoire, nos. 106). 126 In typical style, he writes: “Ayant hier, Madame, en la bouche du Roy oÿ propos selon son nom très-chrestien (dont loué soit le Pere de lumiere, qui les tenebres de nature humaine par lumiere filiale a illuminé) a esté d’une part joieulx et consolé, voyant la superexcellente divine bonté se cascher de ceulx qui presument et cuident avoir la clef de la sapience divine, de laquelle estantz excludz n’y permectent aultres entrer, et luire ès coeurs humbles se confiant de la seulle doulceur et misericorde, et d’aultres part lermoyent que telz dons de grace d’Esperit de Dieu soit noyé en la mer de tribulacions et occupacions du monde, que l’Ennemy luy suscite, prevoyant le fruict que nostre Seigneur par son ministre pourroit avoir.” Briçonnet, Correspondance 2, no. 58, 41 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 110). 127 Briçonnet, Correspondance 2, no. 59, 44 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 111). 128 “Aidez, s’il vous plaist, par prieres que ceste grace en nous ne soit par nous sterille et soufflez souvent ce divin feu pour nous enflammer, et attizez le bois encoires vert, à force d’occasions.” Briçonnet, Correspondance 2, no. 59, 44 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 111). 129 On 1 July 1523, Briçonnet wrote asking her for further marching orders: “Vous suppliant très-humblement qu’il vous plaise ordonner de voz prisonniers voluntaires 125

226

chapter six – the meaux experiment ii

reminding him of their goal of convincing Francis and Louise “to spread the gospel light” and increase its “miraculous catch” for the church. On 24 June, despite some unspecified dangers at court, Marguerite called for Briçonnet to come “set free the word of life, which so many want to imprison.”130 By late July, they dropped this plan since the opportune moment had passed. As Francis I prepared to depart from Paris to join his armies in the south, Briçonnet offered cautious advice and avoided the issue of reform. He suggested that prayers for the war effort should be ordered throughout the kingdom and counseled that the king should not lead his armies personally, lest evil befall him and his kingdom, “embanked by enemies,” be thrown into total chaos.131 As for domestic religious affairs, he merely urged Marguerite to continue to be a “shining lantern” to those who “have come to evangelical understanding.” In other words, she should continue safeguarding the movement at court, while waiting for favorable circumstances to advance it.132

et leur commander vostre voulloir, comme vous plaira plus amplement entendre de Monsieur le prothonotaire.” Briçonnet, Correspondance 2, no. 62, 52 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 116). By this date, while Lefèvre and d’Arande had been protected, the Berquin case had just moved ominously to parlement and the Sorbonne was then turning to a new round of investigations against their fellow doctors Bronosse and Caroli, see Clerval, Registres, 361–264, dates 26 June–1 July 1523. 130 “Parquoy plus je regarde ce qu’il luy plaist par vostre lettre me administrer et plus j’ay cause d’oublier mon peril en sa seurreté et ne regarder que à sa dignation . . . . Et sy avez tant pris de poisson que nous en avez icy ung petit departy, encoires fault il parachever par une voix. Mais premier fault puriffier les vaisseaulx. Parquoy vous renvoye le vostre, affin que vueillez venir mectre en liberté la parolle de vie que tant veullent emprisonner. Mais j’espere que la verité qui nous delivre nous delivrera.” Briçonnet, Correspondance 2, no. 60, 51 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 115). Notably, the attempt to imprison ‘the word of life’ must at that date refer not to Lefèvre’s translations of the New Testament, which would only be investigated in late July, but to the trials of Lefèvre, Berquin, et al., as well the books in Berquin’s library. 131 Briçonnet, Correspondance 2, no. 64, 56–57 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 118). 132 Two related spiritual themes run throughout Marguerite and Briçonnet’s letters of June and July (Briçonnet, Correspondance 2, nos. 59–64; Jourda, Répertoire, nos. 111, 113, 115, 116, 117, and 118): the growth of the church, under the trope of the several miraculous catches of fish mentioned in the New Testament, as well as the nature of the gospel light, which, lodged in human lanterns, occasions its growth. Accordingly, speaking through these metaphors, Briçonnet advises, “Je rendz graces à Dieu, souveraine lumiere, qui vous a inspirée sy oportune visitacion, plus utille que ne cuidez, suppliant le seul necessaire, qui ne faict rien en vain, vous estre pour loyer accroissement de grace et tellement illuminer vostre lanterne qu’elle soit tousjours sur le candelabre pour exemplartité de vie et lumiere à ceulx qui viennent à congoissance evangelicque, à ce que à chascun la voiant loue la sublimité de la puissance divine, ayant en son vaisseau fictile logé telle amplitude de lumiere qu’il soubztraict de ceulx qui de soy poursuivent de leurs oeuvres, se cachant des saiges et se communicquant

model for national reform, –

227

By the time Francis I left in late July, Marguerite and Briçonnet had exploited the king’s close proximity to Paris to muster a robust defense against the conservatives’ attacks. Their ultimate goal of enticing Francis and Louise to back their comprehensive plans to renew the church was thwarted as war preparations increasingly preoccupied the court. Battling in Public, Battling for the Public On 23 July 1523, Francis I left the capital to campaign against the emperor’s forces in the south.133 With the king out of the away, conservatives used the court’s very success in protecting ‘heretics’ as a powerful lever to move public opinion against royal policy. At first in the halls of the university and the parlement, then from the pulpits of Paris, and even more broadly via print to all of France, members of the Faculty of Theology of Paris depicted the royal court, and more particularly the ladies in it, as fomenters of heresy and heresy as the root of France’s calamities. The broad sweep and heavy impact of this attack has not yet been realized. By calling into question the very religious legitimacy of Francis I’s regime, conservatives successfully forced the court to run up the flag of orthodoxy, lest it lose popular support, but could not force it to back the full-scale ‘reign of terror’ they wanted.134 With their investigations in the summer of 1523 often frustrated, conservatives became convinced that female courtiers, Marguerite leading the way, were the chief protectors of heretics.135 Guillaume Petit had given good grounds for such a view the previous fall when

aux petitz.” Briçonnet, Correspondance 2, no. 64, for the quotation 55 and further, 57–59 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 118). 133 In order to attract divine and human blessing, Francis participated in public prayers, processions, and a special ceremony in which the most sacred relics of St. Denis were placed on the high altar where they were to remain for the duration of the war. See Knecht, Renaissance Warrior, 201. 134 In 1525, once the doctors had achieved their goal, Hangest crowed: “Partout où ce régime de terreur a été établi, grâce au Christ, il n’est plus, dans le royaume très chrétien, d’homme qui ose professer le luthéranisme ou affirmer ouvertement les erreurs de Luther.” Dedicatory epistle to Louis de Bourbon, quoted in translation, Imbart, Origines 3, 210–211. 135 Up until that point, Marguerite appears to have been considered orthodoxy. Circa July 1522 (date of privilege), Jacques de Mortières, chaplain of Chalon-sur-Saône, saw fit to dedicate to her his translation of Battista Spagnuoli’s Parthenice Mariane (Lyon: Claude Nourry and Jean Besson, 22 October 1523), an orthodox and quite zealous exposition of Marian piety. Mortières, who seems not to have known Marguerite

228

chapter six – the meaux experiment ii

he denounced d’Arande’s heretical preaching to the ladies at court. That d’Arande was now Marguerite’s almoner clearly implicated her as their leader.136 Meanwhile, intransigents on the faculty were preaching in Paris against the court’s tyranny and its support of heretics. Drawing on long-standing, and increasing, popular discontent with the regime, these defenders of the faith blamed the court’s heretical leaning for France’s calamities. The basis of popular discontent was financial and dated back to the beginning of Francis’s reign. In 1516, the king had several actors from Paris thrown into jail for parodying the regent, Louise of Savoy. In a play, they had portrayed her as a stock comic character, Mother Mayhem/Dame Dotty (mère Sotte), who was running the court, taxing, pillaging, and robbing everything and everyone in sight.137 In 1522, to the anger of Parisians, the king treated several parlementarians to the same summary royal justice for suggesting that taxes were being embezzled by the king’s officers.138 That the

personally, explains that he has been so hardy as to dedicate the work to her because he believes her to be especially devoted to the mother of God (a4v). 136 See the record of Duprat’s interview of 19 June 1523 with representatives of the faculty, Clerval, Registres, 359. Beda continued to view Marguerite as a leading champion of the heretics. At some point after her marriage to Henry d’Albret (January 1527), when reviewing the events of 1523, he annotated the faculty’s censure of Lefèvre of that fall: “La roine de Navarre, sœur du roi françois [supp]ortoit M. Jacques Faber.” Ibid., xxii. 137 “Au dict an [1516], en décembre, furent menez prisonniers devers le Roy, à Amboyse, troys prisonniers de Paris, joueurs de farce; c’est à sçavoyr Jacques le Bazochin, Jehan Seroc et maistre Jehan du Pontalez; lesquelz estoient liez et enferrez et furent ainsy menez à Amboyse. Et ce fut à cause qu’ilz avoient joué des farces à Paris, de seigneurs; entre autres choses, que mère Sotte gourvernoit en cour, et qu’elle tailloit, pilloit et desroboit tout; dont le Roy et madame la Régente advertiz furent fort couroucez. Parquoy furent envoyez querir, par douze archers du prévost de l’hostel du Roy, enferrez et liez et menez à Bloys prisonniers.” Lalanne, Bourgeois, 44. 138 “Le troysiesme dud. moys de novembre [1522], maistre Robert Turquan, maistre Loys Seguier, maistre [André] Verjus, tous consilliers, hommes de grantz vertuz et d’extimacion, furent de l’auctorité et mandement du Roy, lors estant logé chez mons. Mesgret, et la Royne et madame, menéz et constituéz prisonniers à la Bastille. La cause et motif fust que parce que vertueusement et prudentement ilz avoient remonstré à la court (lors mons. le chancellier present et envoyé de par le Roy pour adviser et trouver maniere pour de rechief avoir argent) que l’on debvoit adviser que l’on faissoit des deniers du Roy et à quoy il estoit employez et qu’il avoit gros revenu, et neamoins que d’icelluy n’estoit fait aucune chose pourfitable pour le reaulme et la chose publique, et que partant il estoit à inferer que ses deniers ou la plus grant partie d’iceulx estoient mis et emploiez es bourcez et pourfictz particuliers. Oy ce, mons. le chancellier et aultres maistres des requestes, ses coadherens monstrerent presentement signe evident qu’il n’estoient de ce contant et led. jour en firent le rapport au Roy et à madame la

model for national reform, –

229

people of Paris had good reason to be scandalized was patent when in 1523 Francis I set up a royal commission to investigate his financial ministers.139 In the summer of 1523, the conservatives’ criticism of the court for fomenting heresy fit with popular discontent over royal fiscal and administrative mismanagement. The court recognized this connection. When forbidding the Faculty of Theology to proceed with their heresy investigations against Lefèvre and d’Arande, Duprat also chastised its members for criticizing royal government, notably by having their students debate in class what should happen if a king, government, royal power, or other great persons were reckoned to be the cause of chaos within the realm.140 When Berquin narrowly escaped the stake in early August, the word about town was that he had been saved because his friends had intervened with “powerful ladies” at court.141 Marguerite, Louise, and, perhaps, other women close to Francis I like Philiberte de Savoie were implicated in championing a man already condemned in popular opinion as a Lutheran heretic.142

Regente, qui de ce courrocée ordonna lesd. Consilliers estre menez à la Bastille, non sans grant irritation et commotion de peuple.” Versoris, no. 92, 26. Circa 1523, the king threw several printers and poets into prison for publishing offensive satires whose titles explicitly link the secular and spiritual troubles of the realm: Le monde sans croix, Le Monde qui n’a plus que frire, Le Monde qui est crucifié, etc. See Émile Picot, ed., Recueil général des sotties, 3 vols. (Paris: Firmin Didot et Cie, 1902–1912), vol. 3, 299–300. 139 See Knecht, Renaissance Warrior, 196–197. 140 “. . . regem non bene accipere quedam acta et attentata per Facultatem, ut dicebat [Duprat]. Primo ipsa Facultas divulgari fecerat et publice disputari unam propositionem in scolis collegii Navarre, ubi in multis et rex et eius regimen atque regnum seditiose taxaretur et cum aliis quibusdam personis generosis.” Clerval, Registres, 358. 141 “Quant au regard de quelque gentil homme, nommé Barquin, . . . prins fust de par la court, et, combien que jà fust son procès fait et en grant dangier de sa persone, par oucuns de ses amys estant en court et ayans credit et auctorité envers aucunes dames de grant estat et poteste, requis fust du chancellier et finablement renvoyé au grant conseil.” Versoris, no. 119, 34–35. 142 Crediting Berquin’s salvation to the ladies at court had to be the product of the rumor mill, since the parlementary registers and other chroniclers only record that the king evoked Berquin’s case of his own will, proprio motu, but do not indicate who had influenced his decision. “Du samedy, VIIIe jour d’aoust. Ce jour la court, en ensuivant l’arrest par elle donné, a rendu et rend à l’evesque de Paris present et acceptant maistre Loys Berquin, constitué prisonnier par ordonnance d’icelle pour, appelléz avec luy deux des conseillers de lad. court et aucuns docteurs en theologie, luy faire son proces sur les cas à luy imposez. Et depuis est venu en la court la capitaine Frederic, a presenté à lad. court unes lettres patentes dud. seigneur [Francis I] données le ve jour de ce moys, par lesquelles lad. seigneur proprio motu a évoqué à luy et en son grand conseil

230

chapter six – the meaux experiment ii

Members of the faculty were clearly spreading these rumors. On 8 August, while he was liberating Berquin, Captain Frederic asked the parlement on behalf of the king to prosecute Dom Guillaume Josse, a member of the Faculty of Theology.143 Dom Josse had evidently been slandering the court in his sermons. The following February, Francis I again sent Captain Frederic and his archers to arrest Josse because of his “seditious” preaching. Josse’s sermons and imprisonment created a broad public sensation, duly recorded by all contemporary chroniclers.144 Pierre Driart, the chambrier of the abbey of Saint-Victor in Paris, commented that after Josse’s arrest the people felt it was no longer possible to preach the truth about the evils of Francis’s rule.145 In September 1523, another hoary doctor, Guillaume Duchesne (Quercus), who had an international reputation as leader of the intransigents in the faculty, preached from the pulpit of Saint-Victor that the calamities besetting the realm were due to the free rein of Luther’s adherents.146 Not only le procès touchant led. Berquin.” Registers of the Parlement of Paris, AN X1A 1525, fol. 330v, cited in Versoris, no. 119, 34–35 n. 2. The Bourgeois of Paris only mentions the king as Berquin’s savior. See note 123. 143 “Aussi a dit [Capitaine Frederic] que le Roy luy avoit donné charge dire à lad. court qu’il vouloit que le procès de frere Josse fust faict. A quoy luy a esté respondu que la court n’en a eu aucune charge, et parce que on dit que l’evesque de paris ou son official en a eu charge, la court s’enquerra qu’il y a esté faict. Et s’il plaist au Roy que la court en prenne congnoissance, qu’il face ceans envoyer les charges et informatcions pour, ycelles veues, y proceder ainsi qu’il appartiendra par raison.” AN X1A 1525, fol. 330v cited in Versoris, no. 119, 34–35 n. 2. 144 Josse had been slurring royal government for several years: “En la dicte année [1524], le lundy dernier jour de février, fut prins prisonnier par commandement du Roy, un religieux de l’ordre Sainct-Benoist, nommé Jean [Guillaume] Josses, docteur en théologie; et fut prins par le capitaine, Fédéric et ses archers de la garde du Roy, . . . et estoit le commun bruict que le Roy l’avoit faict prendre, parce que, en icelle année et aultres précédentes, il parloit aucunes choses contre l’honneur du Roy et de la police mauvaise qui estoit au Royaume; après il fut mis en la Conciergerie prisonnier où il fut.” Lalanne, Bourgeois, 187–188. Though the reason for Josse’s arrest was not clear to even the best informed, it certainly upset the people. Versoris, an advocate at the parlement, reports, no. 139, 43: “La cause de son emprisonement ne just sceuee, mais le peuple ne fust contant de son emprisonement.” 145 28 February 1524: “Un nommé dam Josse, moyne de Cluny, docteur en theologie, lequel preschoit le karesme à Sainct-Severin, après la predication par luy faicte, fut pris prisonnier par le capitaine Federic et fut mis dedict jour en la Consiergerye, pour ce que on disoit qu’il avoit mal parlé de la majesté royalle et du sang [Marguerite and Louise]; laquelle chose esmeut fort le peuple, disans qu’il ne failloit plus prescher et que on ne osoit dire verité.” Driart, 87. 146 28 September 1523: “fut faicte la procession du recteur, en l’eglise de ceans [SaintVictor, Paris], et fist la predication mons. maistre de Quercu ou refectouer, pour ce qu’il pleust un peu, et prinst pour son tesme: Obsecro vos ego vinctus in Domino, ne deficiatis in tribulationibus meis pro vobis, que est vestra gloria, a[d] Romanos, où il decida moult bien les tribulations qui estoient pour lors, tant en l’eglise que au royaulme

model for national reform, –

231

did Josse’s and Duchesne’s sermons reflect the views of most of the faculty, but they also show how these doctors and their colleagues managed to convince Parisians as well as provincials of them.147 The author, probably from Rouen, of a street play for the year 1523, the Farce morale de troys pelerins et Malice, placed the blame for the desordre in the world on women, who were running the state,148 and the desordre in the church on those de religion and grans histoyriens, who followed Luther.149 The entwined accusations against the crown of misrule and heresy were also spread through a series of anti-heresy books that the Paris doctors began to write and promote in 1523–1524. The faculty had previously been mandated to review all religious books prior to publication. Whereas in 1522 it had not formally approved any anti-heresy tracts, nor were any of the 169 books printed in Paris that year obviously intended to combat Luther and his ilk,150 in 1523 the faculty approved the publication of some eight polemical works (six in Latin, two in French) from June to December, several of which were written by its own doctors.151

et à l’université, à cause des heresies semées par Luter et ses adherens, lesquelles il dict ne avoir estéez que rechaufféez, pour ce qu’elles avoient esté condempnéez auparavant par l’eglise.” Driart, 79. For Quercus’s reputation, see Erasmus’s letter of 1521 cited chapter 4, note 82, and WA Br 2, no. 376, 109. 147 Farge argues that “Josse’s sermons probably reflected the mood of the faculty, since the doctors not only sought to obtain his release but also assumed financial burdens of the case.” Orthodoxy, 257. The faculty’s instructions of 7 October 1523 to Louise of Savoy on how the court could exculpate itself from suspicions of heresy is further evidence of the faculty’s full support. See below. 148 In Émile Picot, ed., Recueil général des sotties, 2 vols. (Paris: Firmin Didot et Cie, 1904; repr. New York: Johnson Reprint co., n.d.), vol. 2, 299–321, esp. 308–311. 149 “L’historien est un greffier tenant registre des arrests de la cour et justice divine” (Amyot). Entry for “historien” in Greimas, Dictionnaire du moyen français. 150 See Clerval, Registres, 307, and Moreau 3. 151 For the faculty’s discussion of these works in Clerval’s edition and further bibliographical references, see the information in square brackets: Wollick, Collectaneorum Libellus. [24 July 1523, Clerval, Registres, 371 and n. 51, and 420. Moreau 3, no. 587. Higman, Piety, V 68]. Clichtove, De veneratione sanctorum opusculum. [24 July 1523, Clerval, Registres, 371 n. 51, and 420. Moreau 3, no. 456.] Campester, Heptacolon. [11 August and 2 October 1523, Clerval, Registres, 377, 396, and nn. 51, 59, and 81 on pp. 420–421, 424. Moreau 3, no. 443.] Fisher, Assertionis Lutherane confutatio. [31 August 1523, Clerval, Registres, 382, nn. 51 and 67 on 420, 422. Moreau 3, no. 529.] Henry VIII, Assertio septem sacramentorum adversus Martinum Lutherum. [31 August 1523, Clerval, Registres, 382 and nn. 51 and 67, on 420, 422. Moreau 3, no. 514.] Netter, Sacramenta Thome Walden sextum videlicet volumen doctrinalis antiquitatum fidei Ecclesiae catholicae contra Witclevistas et eorum asseclas Lutheranos.

232

chapter six – the meaux experiment ii

All but one of the works approved by the faculty were printed immediately. In order of review by the doctors, these were: Wollick, Nicolas. Collectaneorum Libellus. Le petit Recueil du Poligraphe instructif, et moral, faict en latin et françoys sur les elementz des lettres, commandemens de la loy: oraison dominicale, et sermon des cendres, pour deux ieunes princes de renom. [Paris, Didier Maheu, 1523]. Clichtove, Josse. De veneratione sanctorum opusculum duos libros complectens. Paris: Simon de Colines, 3 September 1523. Campester, Lambert. Heptacolon in summam scripturae sacrilegiae Martini Lutheri in Apologia eius contentam. Paris: Simon de Colines, 1523. Fisher, John. Assertionis Lutherane confutatio. Paris: Claude Chevallon, 22 August 1523. Henry VIII. Assertio septem sacramentorum adversus Martinum Lutherum. Paris, Claude Chevallon, [1523]. Netter, Thomas. Sacramenta Thome Walden sextum videlicet volumen doctrinalis antiquitatum fidei Ecclesiae catholicae contra Witclevistas et eorum asseclas Lutheranos. Ed. Jean Roch. Paris, Francois Regnault [for Josse Bade and Poncet?], 24 December 1523. Hangest, Jérôme de. Antitologie. Paris: Pierre Vidoue for Jean Petit, 27 August 1523. Lutzenburg, Bernard. Catalogus haereticorum: aeditio tertia . . . mox aucta. Paris: Jean Petit (for Pierre Vidoue), 13 July 1524.

Three closely related works should be added to this tally. Even if not mentioned in the faculty’s less than complete records, these three texts have obvious connections with the anti-heresy treatises it formally approved:152

[1 September and 16 December 1523, Clerval, Registres, 374 and 411, and nn. 51 and 100, on 420, 425. Moreau 3, no. 558] Hangest, Antitologie. [7 September and 2 October 1523, Clerval, Registres, 386, 396, and nn. 51, 72, 81, on 420, 422, 424. Crouzet, Genèse, 85.] Lutzenburg, Catalogus haereticorum. [16 December 1523, Clerval, Registres, 411 and nn. 51 and 100, on pp. 420 and 425. Moreau 3, no. 598. Armstrong, Before Copyright, 171, 263.] 152 For further bibliographical references, see the information in square brackets: Campester, Apologia in Martinum Lutherum. [Moreau 3, no. 442; Farge, Biographical Register, nos. 169 and 338. A. Godin, “Lambert Campester . . .,” in Luther en son temps. Table ronde de Montpellier 1983 (1984), 85–97.] Clichtove, De bello et pace opusculum. [Moreau 3, no. 455.] See especially the chapter, “Animandos potius esse principes Christianos ad arma in hostes fidei sumenda,” fols. 27r–29r. Clichtove specifically invites Christian princes to wage holy war on Martin Luther and the “Lutheran faction” asking rhetorically: “Sed cur non expergiscimur a gravi somno, quo tenemur: ut Lutherianam hanc factionem caelo et terris bella intentantem dissipemus, evertamus, et exterminemus, antequam amplius invalescat?” He goes on to excoriate Luther as a

model for national reform, –

233

Campester, Lambert. Apologia in Martinum Lutherum Haereseos Acephalorm ac Sacrilegorum antesignanum: qua strictim huiusce factionis loci insigniores expenduntur, qui subiudiciuntur. Paris: Simon de Colines, [1523]. Clichtove, Josse. De bello et pace opusculum, Christianos principes ad sedandos bellorum tumultus et pacem componendam exhortans. Paris: Simon de Colines, 3 August 1523. Faculty of Theology, Paris. Determinatio Facultatis theologiae Parisiensis super aliquibus propositionibus certis e locis nuper ad eam delatis, de veneratione sanctorum, de canone missae deque sustentatione ministrorum altaris et caeteris quibusdam. Paris: Jean Petit (and Pierre Vidoue) [1523?].

Together, these made up the bulk of anti-heresy literature printed in Paris during that year.153 Primarily aimed at combating heresy,154 some of these works went so far as to suggest that Luther and his followers were being protected in France.155 Soon after publication, the royal court had two of the works approved by the Sorbonne seized: Jérôme de Hangest’s Antitologia and Lambert Campester’s Heptacolon. It has been suggested that there were political reasons for the court’s action. Campester, at least, is supposed to have had connections to the Charles of Bourbon, whose treason became known shortly before these works were seized.156 More pertinently, however, it seems the court had been angered by Hangest’s bold and offensive attacks against the crown. This Parisian doctor had a sharp tongue and quill, which had already earned traitor to Christendom for arguing that Christians should not fight the other great enemy: the Turk. Faculty of Theology, Determinatio Facultatis theologiae Parisiensis. [Moreau 3, no. 585. Rodolphe Peter, “Recherches sur l’imprimeur de la Determinatio attribuée à Guillaume Farel” in Actes du colloque Guillaume Farel: Neuchâtel, 29 septembre–1er octobre 1980, 2 vols, ed. Pierre Barthel, Rémy Scheurer, and Richard Stauffer, Cahiers de la Revue de théologie et de philosophie 9, 1 and 2 (1983) (Geneva: Revue de la théologie et de philosophie, 1983), 221–230] 153 These eleven anti-heresy works formed a not-inconsiderable portion of the 174 books published in Paris in 1523; see Moreau 3. 154 The doctors desired Netter’s Sacramenta to be printed immediately, since they found it to be useful in combating heresy: “[the reviewers] retulerunt quod esset liber multum utilis ecclesie ad confutendum errores, consentit, imo rogavit, dictum impressorem, ut diligenter intenderet illi impressioni, et quando opus esset, de hoc daret suum decretum in principio dicti libri imprimendum.” Clerval, Registres, 375. The same motives applied in approving Campester’s Heptacolon, “consensit Facultas et voluit quod imprimatur tanquam utile et conducens extirpationi errorum dicti heretici.” Clerval, Registres, 377. 155 A full survey of these eleven works would have to be undertaken to assess how openly they implicated the court in the spread of heresy. 156 See Crouzet, Genèse, 84.

234

chapter six – the meaux experiment ii

him censure by the faculty,157 and his Antitilogia had to overcome the objection of some doctors before approval.158 According to Beda, the redeeming value of this French work composed for a popular audience was that it specifically took aim “against the errors of Luther and of those who wish to defend them.”159 Rumors about Luther’s supporters at court soon spread outside France. In October 1524 Jean Gacy, a Franciscan in Geneva, published a scathing exposition of Luther and his adherents’ errors, which, along with Hangest’s work, was among the first anti-heresy tracts in the ‘Gallic’ vernacular. It culminates with a strident denunciation of all those kings, dukes, and other princes who have promoted Lutherans, especially noble women. He echoes the Faculty of Theology’s suspicions about d’Arande and the ladies at the French court: In the courts and presence of princes, this poisonous Lutheran tradition has been preached and disseminated by several secular preachers, who have been sent first and foremost to seduce ladies and demoiselles. These women, under the pretext of devotion and zeal for the truth, have given such men a warm welcome due to their damnable curiosity for such deadly newfangled ideas as well as interest in spreading the sects that proceed from them. Through them, many princes and princesses, prelates, clerics, nobles, and, more broadly, all the estates have been miserably seduced and deceived. Indeed in Francophone (Gallic) lands they have propagated this lethal sect, which is now known in France by the inane name of “the sect of the Turlupins”160 whose adherents with ‘wolfish’ malice secretly defame and damage the Virgin, the honor of God, the blessed saints, their images, the dead, the sacraments, and good deeds. Just like Luther in Germany, the Turlupins [in France] have princes who suffer their existence as well as ladies and demoiselles who delight

157

Farge, Orthodoxy, 25. 7 September 1523: “Et post deliberationem a nonnullis magistrorum, facte sunt parve quedam difficultates; placuit tamen quod vendatur.” Clerval, Registres, 386. 159 In explaining the reasons why the court had been tainted with suspicion of heresy, Beda informed Louise of Savoy on 7 October 1524, “ce qui est moulte scandaleux, puis naguéres ont esté sous le nom et authorité du Roy prins et emporté certaine quantité de volumes, deux traitez composé par Messire Hierosme d’Angest [Hangest] contre les erreurs de Luther, et de ceux qui les voudroient soutenir.” d’Argentré, Collectio judiciorum 2, pt. 1, 4 col. B. Hangest is only known to have published one anti-heresy work in 1523. The second work referred to here is probably Campester’s. 160 “Turlupin—Sectes d’hérétiques qui se répandirent en France, en Allemagne et dans les Pays-Bas pendant le XIIIe et le XIVe siècle; ils soutenaient qu’on ne doit avoir honte de rien de ce qui est naturel. XVIe s. Autant en dit un turlupin de mes livres, Rab. Prol. liv. I.” Émile Littré, Dictionnaire de la langue française. 158

model for national reform, –

235

in them. Because of them, the Turlupins are able to voice their accursed ideas without fear.161

At the same moment (November 1524), the papal nuncio, Girolamo Aleandro, expressed to Francis I the pope’s concern about d’Arande’s preaching as well as Briçonnet’s activities at Meaux.162 Having met with resistance from the court since the beginning of their summer campaign in 1523, the doctors of Paris had sought to depict royal courtiers, particularly women, as responsible for the growth of heresy. By the following year, their efforts were a ringing success. White-Washing the Taint of Heresy When Louise of Savoy became regent on 12 August 1523, she set about dispelling the court’s reputation for fomenting heresy.163 The faculty sensed that it would be easier to manage her than the king. Two days into her regency they considered sending representatives to her in order to protest the court’s recent attempt to prevent them from censuring Lefèvre’s Bible commentaries and translations as well as Berquin’s books, “through which he plainly supports Luther’s damned

161 “Aulcuns au decepteur [Luther] non seullement ont este propices ains de luy se sont fait complices . . . . Et que pis est en leurs cours et presences concioner et divulguer ceste pestifere tradition lutherienne à aulcuns seculiers prescheurs qui sont envoye à premierement seduire dames et damoiselles courtisiennes ausquelles soubz espece de devotion et de zele de verite amplement est receptacle de l’esperit de dampnable curiosité tant par ceste mortifere adinvention que par dissemination d’aultres sectes à elle consequentes desquelles plusieurs et princes et princesses, prelatz, ecclesiastiques, nobles, et generallement de tous estats sont miserablement seduitz et deceuz. Mesmes aux Gaulles ont fait pulluler la virulente secte qu’en France modernement par ung vocable ridicule ont appellé la secte des Turlupins qui de malice lupine occultes dissimulateurs et manifestes decepteurs sont infamateurs de la Vierge, sans per [peur] et sans si [souci] diminuteurs de l’honneur divin, impugnateurs des benoitz sainctz, abolisseurs de leurs imagez, aux trespassez et deffunctz inferant indicible dommaige, contempteurs des sacremens impediteurs de bien faire, [en] bref predicateurs et innovateurs des anciennes erreurs, adinventeurs des nouvelles. Et tout ainsi que leur patron Luther à aulcuns princes et seigneurs qui le protegent et deffendent par tuition de leur glaive vibre encontre exteres nations. Pareillement Turlupins ont princes permettant et dames ou princesses avant agreable par lesquelles se tiennent en securité de leurs execrables ditz.” Gacy, Trialogue nouveau, e3r–e3v. 162 Reported by Henry Heller, “Panorama religieuse, 1524,” Briçonnet, Correspondance 2, 86. 163 “Déclaration portant pouvoir pour la Duchesse d’Angoulême de Gouverner le Royaume, en Qualité de Régente, pendant l’Absence du Roi, sons fils.” 12 August 1523. Ordonnances 3, no. 355, 282–289. Louise was given all regalian powers. No provision was made for her replacement should she become unable to fulfill her duties.

236

chapter six – the meaux experiment ii

writings.”164 But they decided to wait until Chancellor Duprat and Louise’s anticipated visit to Paris.165 By mid-September, the regent was trying to shore up the royal court’s image of orthodoxy. Since the faculty had held back its letters to her, she must have been responding to the public rumors that the doctors had been fostering, rather than to their direct protests. On 19 September, Louise invited the faculty to join a new counter-heresy campaign. The court, she informed them, was planning to commission twelve mendicants to denounce Luther throughout the realm and asked the doctors to choose three secular priests from the faculty to join the missionary team.166 The doctors declined, arguing that licensing preachers was the business of the bishops.167 They were not going to let the court off the heresy hook so easily by agreeing to this small measure. Nevertheless, Louise continued to project the court’s concern that sacrilege was harming the realm, by issuing an ordonnance against brigand troops: who rise in revolt with horrific blasphemies, which they are proud of inventing against the honor and reverence due to God and his glorious Mother, to such an extent that one has to be concerned and fear that most of the calamities, misfortunes, and afflictions, which beset this realm, arise and proceed from the wrath of God, which has been exceedingly provoked by the endless evils that these more than malevolent and miserable brigands commit every day.168

164 14 August 1523: “Inter alia post deliberationes statuit quod littere ad dominum nostrum regem per unum de magistris mitterentur et quod duo alii irent Blesas [Blois] illustrissime matris scilicet cristianissimi regis nostri et domino cancellario rationes dicturi propter quas Facultati videntur maxime pernitiosa que sub nomine eiusdem domini nostri regis fieri cernuntur in causis fidei ut pote pro commentariis et translationibus magistri Jacobi Fabri et pro libris de Berquin per quo[s] manifeste favet damnatis scriptis per Lutherum.” Clerval, Registres, 378. 165 17 August 1523, Clerval, Registres, 378. 166 Clerval, Registres, 391–392. 167 The faculty was, however, encouraged by this turn of events for they then considered sending recommendations on combating heresy in further letters and whitepapers to court. On 6 October the doctors did finally select three preachers for the royal missionary team, but on the following day these candidates refused to go and the faculty dropped the matter. Clerval, Registres, 397–398. 168 “. . . insurgent par blasphemes horribles, en l’invention des quelz ilz se glorifient, contre l’honneur et reverence de Dieu et de sa gloirieuse Mere, tellement qu’il est à doubter et à craindre que grant partie des calamitez, fortunes et adversitez dont est affligé ce royaume, viennent et procedent de l’ire de Dieu, provoquée par l’abisme de maux que chacun jour font et commectent lesd. plus que meschans et malheureux adventuriers, pour lesquels extirper, chasser et eliminer hors de ce royaume, plusieurs constitucions et ordonnances ont esté faictes . . .” “Ordonnance contre les aventuriers,

model for national reform, –

237

In Louise’ estimation, not heretics but blaspheming brigands (who in fact were none other than the king’s marauding, unpaid troops), were responsible for provoking God’s anger and its catastrophic consequences. It was not a very convincing argument. French people considered the king’s mutinous troops as but one of the evils resulting from his misrule. Moreover, Louise’s revelation that it was blaspheming brigands who were inciting God’s wrath was late in coming: they had been plaguing France since the start of the war in 1521. The essential thing to notice here is that the regent’s preaching campaign and ordonnance admitted the essential premise of the court’s conservative critics: impiety was causing the calamities afflicting the realm. After this transparent attempt to shift the blame, Louise quickly capitulated. On 6 October she sent an envoy to ask the faculty for advice about how to extirpate heresy and how persons of high status could exculpate themselves from charges of having favored it.169 The haughty regent humbled herself by admitting that the crown had ‘unwittingly,’ as Beda would graciously allow, abetted the spread of heresy and that some of its members were justly suspect. Beda’s response—penned, approved by the faculty, and posted in one day—contained a staunch defense of orthodoxy as well as unveiled disdain for the court. He browbeat this proud but suppliant ruler by reciting the litany of ways in which the court had impeded the faculty and the parlement in their efforts to combat heresy, which had led to the royal court falling into justified disrepute.170 To the regent’s two questions, Beda responded with detailed articles, here paraphrased. Question I. How should the court combat heresy? 1) and 3) The court should order all royal officers by lettres patentes from the Grand Conseil, in accord with an arrest from the parlement, to renounce Luther’s errors publicly. If rigorously executed, “one can hope that hereafter no one will dare to defend this damned doctrine and that thereby it will be abolished in the kingdom.”

pillards chefs de bande et Blasphémateurs.” 25 September 1523. Ordonnances 3, no. 359, 298–304. 169 Clerval, Registres, 397–398. 170 d’Argentré, Collectio judiciorum 2, pt. 1, 3–5.

238

chapter six – the meaux experiment ii

2) The court should order that in every diocese all Lutheran books be turned in to be burned on pain of excommunication, as the parlement had done in Paris. 4) [Offering an admonition, not an instruction] Many believe that these pernicious doctrines have been tolerated and allowed to enter, spread, and multiply in the realm covertly. As it says in Scripture, as often as God’s elect, the people of Israel, fell away from the purity and integrity of the faith given to them in the law, they were punished with “plagues, famines, wars, and other scourges of God.” 5) The faculty should be allowed to “damn and destroy” every book, doctrine, or individual that upholds, defends, praises, or favors Luther, as the faculty had been trying and would continue to do. 6) In conclusion, the regent can be assured that if persons of whatever rank have hitherto favored this condemned doctrine or disparaged those whom have attacked, reproved, and damned it, they have in so doing “taken away the honor of the king, herself, and the good and utility of the faith and of the realm.” Question II. How did those who allege that they have been wrongly defamed for having favoring heresy gain this reputation? 1) Before the matter was well understood, several “grands personnages” had praised Lutheran doctrine at court and maligned all those who condemned and reproved it. 2) Although the king had often commanded that the books of Luther should be burned, his orders had only been executed very tardily after the parlement and faculty mounted great pressure. 3) The suspicion of heresy against the court grew greatly, not only in Paris, when people heard that since Easter [1523] the king had impeded several bishops and their officers from extirpating heresy, such as the bishop of Sées, and more recently the bishop of Paris [François Poncher] during the Berquin trial.171 4) The court’s ill repute had grown because it had repeatedly evoked the cases brought against Lefèvre and Berquin from parlement [to special royal commissions], procedures that in the judgment of all learned, unprejudiced people were most pernicious and dangerous because “it

171 Jacques de Silly was bishop of Sées from 1511 to 1539, which lies in Marguerite’s duchy of Alençon, thus implicating her once more in obstructing heresy proceedings. The impediment of the bishop’s investigations in 1523 is otherwise unattested.

model for national reform, –

239

is by such subtle machinations that delinquents are defended as well as errors and heresies nourished.” 5) Suspiciously, every means possible have been used to impede the faculty from rendering its judgment of Berquin’s books, “which were written for no other reason than to defend, propagate, and uphold Luther’s errors and heresies.” 6) Also, everything possible was done to impede the faculty from examining Lefèvre’s books. Those responsible for this sought “manifestly” thereby to nourish errors against the faith in this kingdom. 7) Recently, another serious scandal has arisen because a great quantity of books against Luther’s errors and those who uphold them, including two by faculty member Jérôme de Hangest, had been seized in the king’s name. 8) In conclusion, anyone who instructs the king and regent contrary to these articles does not love their honor and salvation or the purity of the faith and the good of the kingdom. Finally, Beda described the remedy for freeing great lords from a reputation of heresy: 1) The only way to “purge and justify” these grands personnages is for them to imitate St. Paul and defend what they had formerly persecuted and damn and reprove that which they had in error praised and defended. 2) The court must permit prelates, freely and without hindrance, to use their power to smite heresy and heretics of all ranks (implying against all recalcitrant grand personnages, even ones at court). Otherwise, in saving the honor and reputation of a few individuals, the crown would lead to eternal damnation both these persons and themselves, from which the realm would suffer much. As for practical solutions, Beda instructed the court to give the faculty free rein and full support in all its measures. Just as the doctors had rebuffed the regent’s request for members to join the court-sponsored preaching campaign, so again Beda refused to take the court on as an equal partner. Under Beda’s plan, the faculty would be not just be arbiter of the faith, but its inquisitorial judge. The royal court would serve as its sergeant. What was the effect of Beda’s proposals? On 15 October, Guillaume Briçonnet published two synodal decrees that largely conformed to Beda’s proposals. He condemned Luther, ordered Lutheran books to be burned, and required his ministers to defend a certain number of

240

chapter six – the meaux experiment ii

doctrines the German schismatic had called into question.172 While later events certainly corroborate that Briçonnet disapproved of Luther’s divisiveness, with these decrees Briçonnet was primarily seeking to protect Marguerite’s reputation in the light of the court’s submission to the faculty. The day before he issued them, he wrote to her’ “I assure you, Madame, my taint will not touch you.”173 In his timely condemnation of Luther, he was bending with the prevailing winds. On 19 and again on 26 October, letters from the court reached the faculty. The court’s response to Beda’s articles was so favorable that the syndic felt the faculty could take a short, but well-deserved break from combating heresy until after All Saints’ Day. How favorable was the court’s response in reality? As for Louise’s “conversion,”174 it was no capitulation. She may have halted the court’s interference in the faculty’s affairs, but she stopped short of joining them, as Beda requested, “in condemning that which courtiers had formerly praised.” Nevertheless, the faculty had won that round by forcing the court and Briçonnet to fly the flag of orthodoxy and refrain from further meddling. For the rest of 1523, the pace of the faculty’s meetings slackened. All that remained on their docket was to refine the retractions that they would require of Caroli and Mazurier and to draft the determinatio they would publish against the Meaux group.175

172

See above at note 70. In a long development on God as a mirror of perfect love, which human souls [mirrors] reflect imperfectly, Briçonnet writes: “Mais l’amour qui demoure en soy ternist son myrouer, dont procede la peste et ruine de toutes creatures: estant de ce nombre et de tous le capitaine, ne vous nommeray [‘nommerez’ in MS], s’il vous plaist, pourtant mere inutille. Car combien que me regarde fort et mon plaisir et, par ce, soit mon myrouer en excellence terny, je vous asseure, Madame, que la terniceure ne viendra jusques à vous, que ne vueille en vostre myrouer congnoistre vostre voulloir pour, en Dieu, l’acomplir autant que en donnera la grace.” 14 October [1523], Briçonnet, Correspondance 2, no. 68, 66 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 123). Immediately after these words, Briçonnet signals that he is responding to her letters about pressing matters at court because of which she had written to him and had requested his attendance at court. Given the timing of this letter, which was written after the faculty had sent Beda’s response to court (7 October), shortly before the court’s favorable response (arriving 19 October in Paris), and a day before he effectively fulfilled Beda’s instructions as far as bishops are concerned (15 October), his words can only be interpreted as a promise to protect Marguerite’s compromised reputation. 174 Clerval characterizes Louise’s appeal to the faculty in October as a “conversion,” Registres, 423 n. 79. 175 Caroli and Mazurier would contest the articles attributed to them and forms of retraction imposed on them throughout the fall, but no help came to them from court. On 2 December, the faculty finally passed sentence on the ‘Articles de Meaux’ and had their determination published at Paris. See note 152 for bibliographic details; reprint 173

model for national reform, –

241

The Bourges Breakout, November 1523–February 1524 Suffering under the faculty’s attacks and with a growing reputation as champions of heretics, Marguerite and Briçonnet faced the difficult choice between pushing ahead with their reform plans and drawing back. Louise’s pragmatic compromise with political necessity limited their room to maneuver. Marguerite answered this challenge by sponsoring evangelical preaching in her city of Bourges against the advice of Briçonnet. Her actions pointed the way to the expansion of an evangelical network under her wing as well as to their eventual spurning of Briçonnet and others, who balked when religious controversy endangered their reputation, lives, and, in their view, the prospect of promoting a true reform. The Bourgeois de Paris recounts the only measure against heresy the court is supposed to have taken in the fall of 1523 after receiving Beda’s instructions. Twelve mendicant doctors sponsored by Louise, he claims, had dispersed to the four corners of the realm to preach against Luther and his adherents.176 According to its records, the Faculty of Theology did not, in the end, send out any members to join this campaign, nor do any other sources corroborate that the court’s twelve evangelists actually were sent. Thus, the Bourgeois’ account probably registers rumors in Paris of the court’s overtures to the faculty rather than any real follow-through in the provinces. Marguerite’s correspondence and Lefèvre’s preface to the November 1523 installment of his New Testament translation,177 however, suggest Marguerite intended to exploit (or subvert, depending on whose idea it had originally been) this preaching campaign as a means to spread evangelical preaching beyond Meaux. Lefèvre proclaimed in his prefatory epistle that the king was promoting the proclamation

in d’Argentré, Collectio judiciorum 2, pt. 1, xiv–xx [d’Argentré, Collectio judiciorum 1, pt. 2, 374–379]. 176 “Au dict an 1523, en ce temps, le Roy et madame la Régente, sa mère, par délibération de conseil, envoièrent douze docteurs religieux des quatre ordres mandiennes par toutes les contrées de France et d’ailleurs, pour prescher la foy catholique, pour abbatre et adnichiller les hérésies de Luther. Et, pour ce faire, furent prins des docteurs à Paris et ailleurs qui furent envoyez, les uns en Normandie, les aultres en Champaigne, les aultres en Picardie, les aultres en Guyenne, les aultres en Bourdeloys et Auvergne, aultres en Lyonnois, aultres en Languedoc et Daulphiné, et plusieurs aultres lieux et leur fut baillé certaine somme d’argent pour ayder à faire leur despence et partirent en novembre.” Lalanne, Bourgeois, 187. 177 See chapter 5, note 75.

242

chapter six – the meaux experiment ii

evangelical doctrine, but made no mention of combating heresy: “[The king desires] that the word of God be purely preached throughout his kingdom.”178 The only preacher known with certainty to have been sent out from court during the Advent season of 1523 was Marguerite’s almoner, Michel d’Arande, to Bourges. While Louise was escalating her orthodoxy campaign and accepting Beda’s advice in September and October, Marguerite signaled to Briçonnet that he was needed at court more than ever179 since evangelicals there were having to swallow a bitter pill.180 In the midst of these troubles, she arranged d’Arande’s preaching mission to Bourges. On 8 November, Marguerite thanked the canons of the cathedral for having accepted her almoner as their Advent preacher.181 Soon thereafter, we find her urging Briçonnet excitedly that, rather than submit to adverse circumstances, it was time for them to act (as indeed she had just done):

178 “Et telle est l’intention du debonnaire roy tant de cueur que de nom treschrestien, en la main duquel dieu a mys si noble et excellent royaume, que la parolle de dieu soit purement preschee partout son royaume à la gloire du pere de misericorde et de Jesuchrist son filz.” Rice, Prefatory Epistles, no. 138, 457–468, 465–466. See also Herminjard 1, no. 79, 159–169. Lefèvre does assert that preaching anything other than the ‘pure words of God’ promotes sects and division. As with Briçonnet, the whole tenor of Lefèvre’s preface is directed against the impediments and false doctrine of the doctors of theology, not Lutherans. Moreover, just when it would have been expedient to do so, he specifically avoids claiming that this preaching campaign should or would be directed, as Louise claimed, at extirpating Lutheran heresy. 179 Before 15 September and circa 4 October, Briçonnet, Corrospondance 2, nos. 65 and 67, 59–60, 63–64 (Jourda, Répertoire, nos. 119 and 122). 180 Again Marguerite’s reference to events is highly allusive, but around the time her mother was accepting Beda’s advice, Marguerite wrote to Briçonnet (between 14 and 25 October) about the need to bear up henceforth as circumstances became ‘bitter’: “Mais je pense que nostre appetit n’est encoire preparé à telle viande [pain, viz., doctrine évangélique] et que, pour ceste heure, nous fauldra acoustumer de menger lettues ameres. Dieu vueille que les puissions sy doulcement avaller que la doulceur de l’aigneau ne nous soit refuzée, auquel seul puissions trouver goust, santé, force et consolacion et nostre tout en luy.” Briçonnet, Correspondance 2, no. 69, 66–67 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 124). 181 The date of Marguerite’s response to their acceptance of her original offer implies that she had decided to send d’Arande to Bourges in October, around the time the court was planning its missionary team. Marguerite to the Canons of Bourges. Blois, 8 November [1523] “Mesieurs, j’ay esté advertie par ce que m’ont escript Monsieur le général de la Beaulme et lieutenant Bigot, comment vous avez pour aggréable le prescheur que ay intention vous envoyer, de quoy je suis très aise, espérant que sa doctrine et prédication ne seront par de là de peu de fruict.” La Ferrière-Percy, Livre de dépenses, 160–161 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 130).

model for national reform, –

243

After having considered for some time our ingratitude [to God during current adversity] and fixed my gaze on His immovable goodness, I confess that we justly suffer since we have flinched under the spur.182

Briçonnet responded to her enthusiasm for sending out preachers (chevaliers) with caution. He advised that ministers who cannot endure that spiritual food is not distributed for a time “are not yet chevaliers worthy of sitting at the Lord’s table.” Rather, he asserted that true seasoned captains of the faith (vielz capitaines esleuz pour conseil) patiently endure adverse circumstances, following the will of their Lord, and begged her to be such a one.183 Marguerite and Briçonnet’s emerging disagreement about how to advance God’s cause (le seul necessaire) is revealed in their deeds. While d’Arande preached evangelical doctrine in Bourges, Briçonnet fought on two fronts to keep evangelical renewal on a conservative, even keel. On 13 December at Meaux, he redoubled his injunctions against Lutheran preachers who were continuing to agitate even after his October decrees. Turning from the danger of radical zeal from below to that of lax complacency from above, he kept imploring Marguerite to see to it that the king would select good prelates who would promote pure evangelical doctrine.184 Meanwhile, d’Arande’s Advent sermons were a success and Marguerite sent him back to preach Lent in 1524, urging the canons of Bourges to give him another warm welcome and—expressing the intent of this mission—to continue “to honor gospel teaching (la doctrine

182 She opens the letter enthusiastically, exclaiming: “Le nom de Celuy en qui seul toutes choses sont bien eureuses soit loué, benoist et gloriffié, par lequel sommes sanctiffiéz, justiffiéz et saulvéz!” Subsequently, she argues that, although unworthy vessels, “il [God] ne cesse de les [his vessels] preparer par tous les moiens qu’il congnoist, tant de tribulacion que de prosperité, pour les faire vaisseaulx dignez de luy par luy digniffiéz. Et bien doivent estre doulces les adversitéz qui sont de tel bien preparacion. Et plus nous doivent consoler ses verges de correction que ses graces doulces non meritées et mal receues. Parquoy, après avoir pensé ung peu nostre ingratitude et levé l’oeil pour regarder son importable bonté, je confesse que justement nous souffrons: car trop avons recalcitré contre l’eguillon. . . . Je remectz le surplus à la creance du porteur, que vous sçavez estre seur et affectionné pour son seul Seigneur et Maistre . . .” Translated portion italicized. [c. 10 November 1523], Briçonnet, Correspondance 2, no. 71, 71 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 129). 183 20 November [1523], Briçonnet, Correspondance 2, no. 72, 71–76; esp. 74–76 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 131). 184 See above Briçonnet’s passionate plea in note 68.

244

chapter six – the meaux experiment ii

évangélique) above all else.”185 The canons were evidently receptive to Meaux group’s evangelical doctrine, which, according to a member of the Meaux group, Guillaume Farel, now included a healthy critique of abuses in the cult of the saints.186 The archbishop, François de Bueil, however, was not pleased with these developments. After d’Arande’s first Lenten sermon, the archbishop threatened Marguerite’s almoner via his diocesan prosecutor with excommunication and imprisonment if he persisted. A major scandal was at hand. As soon as she received word, Marguerite instructed the canons to permit d’Arande to preach and forced the archbishop’s prosecutor to explain himself to the king.187 Finally, she turned to Briçonnet for advice.188 Marguerite’s plans to combat the

185 “Messieurs, maistre Michel, mon aulmosnier ordinaire, s’en retourne présentement par de là, pour annoncer la parolle de nostre Seigneur durant ce sainct karesme, lequel pendant qu’il a esté en ce lieu m’a faict très bon recit et estime de l’ordre et honesteté requise que tenez au sainct service divin qui me tourne à merveilleux plaisir et contantement de vous tous, et vous prie, autant que faire puis, y vouloir continuer de bien en mieulx, ensemble d’avoir la doctrine évangélique en singulière recommandation, selon le bon zelle que Dieu vous en peult donner et la bonne opinion qui de ce m’est permis et licite en avoir. Et a tant remettant à vous dire plus de mes nouvelles sur la créance de mon dict aulmousnier . . .” 29 January [1524], La Ferrière-Percy, Livre de dépenses, 159–160 (emphasis added) (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 141). Huguet, Dictionnaire de la langue française du seizième siècle, “‘avoir en recommandation:’ estimer, honorer.” 186 See Farel’s description of the results of d’Arande’s preaching at Bourges, Herminjard 1, no. 97, 205–207. 187 11 February 1524. Marguerite to the Cathedral chapter of Saint-Étienne, in Bourges. “. . . Nous avez fait grand plaisir de nous donner à congnoistre le zèle que avez à la parole de Dieu que nous désirons faire annoncer par nostre aulmosnier, lequel le roy et dame et toute ceste compaignie ont plusieurs fois expérimenté et fait prescher devant eux le St. Évangile, de quoy ils sont bien édifiez, et nous donnent merveille et l’empeschement et défenses que dite luy avoir esté faictes et données par un nommé Gaudon, soy-disant procureur de l’arcecvesque de Bourges, lesquelles en cet endroict ne peuvent ny ne doivent avoir lieu, car il n’est question que de l’honneur de Dieu et de la charité que devons à nos subjects. Pour quoy trouvons lesd. défenses fort estranges, et ne pouvons penser estre procédées dud. arcevesque, mais plus-tost de quelque esprit malin auquel Dieu n’a point tant fait de grâce qu’il puisse rien gouter de luy. Et à ceste fin avons envoyé vers led. arcevesque pour en entendre la vérité. Attendant la réponse duquel et que led. Gaudon soit venu devers le roy soy justifier, vueillez faire continuer les sermons et prédications de nostredit aulmosnier. . . . Soyez seurs que l’arcevesque ne l’entend, et quand j’auray sa responce, le vous manderons: mais que nul ne craigne de ouyr la parole de Dieu.” Louis-Hector Chandru de Raynal, Histoire de Berry depuis les temps les plus anciens jusqu’en 1789, 3 vols. (Bourges: Vermeil, 1844–1847), vol. 3, 302. 188 “. . . j’envoie ce porteur, procureur du roi à Bourges, bon et loyal serviteur, devers vous, pour vous compter le tout et prendre vostre conseil à parler au malade [the archbishop of Bourges].” (Blois?, between 12 and 24 February 1524), Briçonnet, Correspondance 2, no. 86, 124–125 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 150).

model for national reform, –

245

archbishop enjoyed the high ground at court. François de Bueil had been elected instead of the king’s candidate in the first major contested election after the Concordat.189 Thus Marguerite could count on the full support of her brother, who had recently returned to court, against this hostile prelate. Yet, upon hearing of her plans to beat down the archbishop, Briçonnet protested, advising instead that d’Arande should stop and preach elsewhere. Defining the limit of acceptable action in promoting the gospel, Briçonnet upheld the powers of bishops to license preachers in their dioceses free from royal intervention, forbade criticism of the established cult, and, finally, argued that if preaching the gospel caused scandal, then one ought to desist lest God be dishonored and the people’s hearts be hardened against His message.190

189

See chapter 3. Briçonnet’s letters of 24 and 25 February 1524 are the most important sources for understanding his nuanced approach to reform; see Briçonnet, Correspondance 2, no. 87 and 88, 125–131 (Jourda, Répertoire, nos. 151 and 152). The voice of principled non-violent activism is so rare among the ardent reformers of the century that his letters deserve to be read in full. Here we highlight his prescriptive conclusions, stemming from the d’Arande controversy at Bourges: 1) Partisans of the Gospel should not fight among themselves, nor should they attack the misguided, 126: “Toutesfois les membres de la vraie sapience ont entre eulx solide et perpetuelle coherence, les unissant la souveraine unité et vraie paix se communicquant en eulx. Et, par ce, ne combatent point ensemble et aussy peu contre les membres de presumptueuse sagesse . . . . A ceste cause, contentions qui ne servent que à subversion des auditeurs sont deffendues.” 2) Zeal can actually hurt reform. Briçonnet counsels reform without scandal, 126–127: “L’on peult aucunes fois s’esgarer soubz umbre de zelle qui doibt estre dressé selon. . . . supernaturelle discretion, à moult sçavoir embrider nostre zele procedant de l’amour divine et du prochain. . . . Scandalle est grand barriere qui doibt retenir tout prescheur evangelicque, mesmement que, faignant aller plus loing, peult tousjours retourner et rompre le pain pour ouvrir les yeulx par sapience humaine ou aultrement detenuz. Tout zelle de l’honneur de Dieu doibt estre pur, et plus est ardant, plus fault craindre qu’il n’y ait quelque chose meslée du propre. L’ediffication du prochain est, soubz, l’honneur de Dieu, la fin seulle du preconizateur: laquelle cessant, aussy doibt il.” 3) Briçonnet counsels backing off from preaching when it has started to cause scandal, 127–128: “La prudence est caller, n’entreprendre ou ne continuer l’oeuvre dont l’issue n’est honnorable ne volue. Je me suis quelque fois persuadé que raison et honnesteté deust constraindre nostre honneur à se contenter et dissimuler, . . . et ce pour obvier au scandalle.” 4) Briçonnet cautions against all the high-minded justifications put forward by zealots on all sides, 130: “C’est assavoir l’honneur et zelle de Dieu, le bien de la chose publicque, tant d’Esglise que temporelle, le scruplure de conscience et semblables drogues, dont chascun se veult ayder, qui sont souvent beneficquement distribuées. L’application indiscrete en est mortelle.” 5) Evangelical preachers’ marching orders tell them where to avoid, when to move on, and to obey the episcopal hierarchy. Speaking of d’Arande, who had not been received by the archbishop, he writes, 131: “. . . au chef des articles de leurs instructions 190

246

chapter six – the meaux experiment ii

Marguerite did not follow Briçonnet’s advice. Francis I seized part of the archbishop’s temporalia and d’Arande was permitted to continue preaching.191 To smooth over this divergence in strategy, a few weeks later she sent a charming letter, praising Briçonnet for enduring his torments (his continuing troubles with the Franciscans of Meaux and the recent investigation of his uncle Semblançay’s for embezzlement)192 like St. Lawrence, with his eyes fixed single-mindedly on his savior. “Nevertheless,” she explained: I am not as perfect as Saint Peter who, when driven by the persecution of his master, put his hand to the sword, not knowing the great good which would come from so much suffering [i.e., Jesus’ suffering and death, not the pain of the high priest’s servant whose ear Peter cut off].193

Peter had spilled blood before being ordered to put up the sword by Jesus; Marguerite, less perfect, was willing, figuratively, to continue to do so even after having been admonished by Briçonnet. She begs him not to suffer his “bitter cup” alone, but allow her to try, as Simon did for Christ, to ease his suffering. She was gently cajoling him, despite his scruples, to continue to use the king’s power when and however they could to promote their agenda. Whether principle or cowardice motivated Briçonnet, he signaled the limits of his willingness to lead almost two years before the Meaux group was crushed by parlementary investigation. So long as they enjoyed royal protection and did not create public scandal, he was keen to promote their evangelical preaching. Since conservatives had clearly indicated that they would continue attacking Lefèvre, Berquin, and anyone else diverging from their narrow conception of the faith, in pulling back from Marguerite’s initiative at Bourges, Briçonnet had

leur est enjoinct laisser les lieux où ne seront receuz et secourre la pouldre de leurs piedz. L’on peult dire qu’il [d’Arande] est receu. L’on respond que à l’aultre n’appartient à envoier evangelizer que à l’espoux ministerial [clerical hierarchy], qui seul peult ‘recepvoir’ ou regecter.” 191 See Farel’s letter cited in note 186 and Brimont, Le XVIe siècle et les guerres de la Réforme en Berry, vol. 2, 134. 192 See Marguerite’s references to these troubles discussing the ‘Great Rope-maker’ [God as archetype of the true Franciscan] and specifically the Semblançay investigation in Jourda, Répertoire, nos. 146 and 150. 193 “Toutesfois ne suis je sy parfaicte que sainct Pierre qui, pressé des persecutions de son maistre, mist la main au glayve, ignorant le très-grand bien qui procede de très-grant peine.” 16 March 1523, Briçonnet, Correspondance 2, no 89, 132 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 153).

model for national reform, –

247

effectively declared that he would demit from leadership of their battered company if matters became more contentious. As Briçonnet reached this decision, Marguerite decided whenever she had the clout to do so to fight back against adversaries and press forward in exporting evangelical preaching from Meaux and the court to Bourges and beyond despite the constant threat of riposte from conservatives. From then on, as Briçonnet held back, she emerged as the dynamic leader of French evangelicals: an influential royal councillor, who was committed to exploring ways to promote the gospel even in an increasingly hostile environment. By 1524, Marguerite’s entourage at court and the Fabrists at Meaux had become the standard-bearers to whom other evangelicals would rally behind “captain” Marguerite.

CHAPTER SEVEN

FROM MEAUX TO MADRID: THE NETWORK KNITS TOGETHER, 15241526 Hercules Germanicus The German Hercules Germanum Alcidem deus aethere misit ab alto: Qui nobis oculos redderet, atque fidem. God has sent a German Hercules from heaven on high, To restore to us our vision and faith. —Nicolas Bourbon, Epigrammata (1529/1530) En aymant Dieu de cueur entierement While loving God with whole heart En aymant Dieu de cueur entierement, Consolons nous ensemble uniquement, Quelque tourment qu’on nous face ou grevance, Ne delaissons fraternelle alliance, Comme plusieurs font infidelement. While loving God with whole heart, Let us comfort each other, every one. Whatever misery or pain they inflict on us, Let us not abandon our brotherly bond As some do faithlessly. Les saincts escriptz universellement, Mandent à tous d’avoir parfaictement, Dilection l’ung à l’autre et fiance, En aymant dieu de cueur entierement. The Holy Scriptures command throughout That we should love each other perfectly And trust one another totally, While loving God with whole heart. Quant il viendra au jour du jugement, Il pugnira les tyrans durement, Et les esleux seront hors de souffrance. Vivons donc tous en certaine esperance, Prenans en gré le temps presentement, En aymant dieu de cueur entierement. When he will come on the day of judgment, He will punish those tyrants terribly, And the elect will be freed from pain. Let us live therefore in this sure hope, Patiently enduring the present season, While loving God with whole heart. —Anonymous rondeau in “l’Initiatoire instruction” [c. 1529]

250

chapter seven – from meaux to madrid

These two poems voice the views of the Navarrian Network. Using the inclusive “we,” the authors speak for their brethren. Recalling shared beliefs and experiences, they orient their history (past, present, and future) around the three theological virtues: faith brought them together, love unites them, and hope will sustain them against ongoing oppression. Nicolas Bourbon proclaims in scarcely veiled terms that Martin Luther, “The German Hercules,” had restored their understanding of true faith.1 Like Bourbon, during the 1520s people of diverse backgrounds began joining the group championed by Marguerite.2 They believed that a new age—called by Gérard Roussel an “evangelical 1 To my knowledge, this is the first time that Bourbon’s “Hercules Germanicus” appears in print since its original publication in Bourbon’s Epigrammata ([Lyon: Laurent Hylliare], February 1529/1530), fol. 11v. In 1990, Christine Lauvergnat-Gagnière announced the discovery of this previously unknown text at the Bibliothèque Municipale of Lyon (BM Lyon Rés. 167292) in “Un peu de nouveau sur Nicolas Bourbon l’ancien,” BHR 53 (1991), 663–693. Among the Epigrammata are 97 evangelical poems, like “Hercules Germanicus,” which Bourbon suppressed in his well-known Nugae (1533 and 1538). Bourbon scholarship has hitherto relied on these expurgated later editions. Lauvergnat-Gagnière’s very useful appendix (685–693) compares these three editions and notes the excised material. The probable inspiration for Bourbon’s epigram cited above was the placard by Hans Holbein the Younger, Hercules Germanicus (1522). Bourbon’s two lines, however, do not reprise the themes of the twelve-line poem on the labors of Luther-Hercules printed below Holbein’s woodcut. Robert Scribner observes that the depiction of Luther as Hercules, a humanist invention, had a short lifespan in Germany. See his For the Sake of the Simple Folk: Popular Propaganda for the German Reformation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981) 32–34. For the text of the poem under Holbein’s woodcut and commentary, see Theophil Burckhardt-Biederman, “Über Zeit und Ablaß des Flugblattes: Luther als Hercules Germanicus,” Basler Zeitschrift für Geschichte und Altertumskunde 4 (1905), 38–44, 39. As Marc-René Jung notes, Bourbon distributed the heroic epithet “Hercules” liberally, naming the famed Hellenist, Guillaume Budé, the “French Hercules” in his 1533 Nugae (fol. e6r); see Marc-René Jung, Hercule dans la littérature française du XVIe siècle (Geneva: Droz, 1966), 77. Bourbon evidently had a deep respect for Hans Holbein’s work, since he was later involved in the printing of the immensely successful Historiarum Veteris Testamenti icones ad vivum expressae (1538) illustrated by Holbein, for which Bourbon wrote a preface to the second edition (1539) that was included in subsequent reprints (at least five more to 1550). 2 Shortly after he published his Epigrammata, Bourbon made his way from the humanist circle around Francis de Tournon, to whom he dedicated this work, via evangelical circles at the University of Paris into the orbit of Marguerite of Navarre, who later selected him as tutor for her only surviving child, Jeanne d’Albret. Marguerite probably knew of Bourbon from at least before July 1530, since he addressed a poem to her during her second pregnancy (1529–1530). See Jourda, Marguerite, 151, n. 93, citing Nugae (Paris, 1533), fols. h2v and h5v and Nugarum libri octo (Lyon S. Gryphe, 1538), nos. XCCCIII and CLV, 123 and 128; and Jean Dupèbe, “Un document sur les persécutions de l’hiver 1533–1534 à Paris,” BHR 48 (1986), 405–417.

the network knits together, –

251

enlightenment”—was dawning, whose hero, if not leader, in France was Luther.3 The second poem, “While loving God with whole heart,” fills the last page of a manuscript made for Marguerite containing French translations of two catechisms by the Lutheran Johannes Brenz and an anonymous evangelical treatise on confession. The rondeau concludes the manuscript like a benediction or perhaps a pilgrim’s song for the road ahead, encouraging a fraternal band ‘carrying their crosses and following Christ’ to remain steadfast in the face of persecution.4 This exhortation offers no hope that their suffering would end in this life, only that God would settle accounts in the hereafter. Both poems reflect the state of mind of Marguerite’s network at the end of a decade in which it had come to life, suffered bouts of intense persecution, lost many members, and yet survived. The fortune of these verses as literary objects accurately reflects that of network members: they were forced underground. Bourbon thought it wise to suppress his epigram and other controversial verses in subsequent editions of 3 For Roussel’s description, see chapter 4, at note 2. The sentiment that a new age was dawning was ubiquitous. In 1526, Pierre Toussain, a young humanist from Metz who made his way into the network via the circles around Erasmus and Farel at Basel, described the times as the era when “renascens Christi Evangelium!” Herminjard 1, no. 181, 444–448; 445. 4 Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal MS 5096, Initiatoire instruction en la religion chrestienne, fol. 57r for the rondeau. See the cover of this study, on which is reproduced a miniature from this manuscript that depicts Marguerite, Henri d’Albret, and their court bearing crosses and following Christ on his way to Calvary. This image resonates with the rondeau, which encourages Marguerite and her band to suffer persecution for the sake of true religion. For studies of this manuscript’s content and illuminations see Myra D. Orth, “Radical Beauty: Marguerite de Navarre’s Illuminated Protestant Catechism and Confession,” SCJ 24 (1993), 383–427; idem, “Manuscrits pour Marguerite,” in Marguerite de Navarre, 1492–1992: Actes du colloque international de Pau (1992), ed. Nicole Cazauran and James Dauphiné (Mont-de-Marsan: Editions InterUniversitaires, 1995), 85–105; and Marc Venard, “Un catéchisme offert à Marguerite de Navarre,” BSHPF 142 (1996), 5–32, who takes issue with Orth’s interpretation of the illustrations. He offers a rich study of the first of the two Brenz catechisms, of which he provides a transcription. Orth responded to Marc Venard in “Reconsidering Radical Beauty: Marguerite de Navarre’s Illuminated Protestant Catechism and Confession (Arsenal, MS 5096)” in Le livre évangélique en français avant Calvin: Études originales, publications d’inédits, catalogues d’éditions anciennes, ed. Jean-François Gilmont and William Kemp, Nugae humanisticae sub signo Erasmi 4 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2004), 86–97. “While loving God with Whole Heart” is anonymous and, it does not seem to have been published in its day. It is not among the known works of the two most likely candidates in her circle, Marot and Marguerite herself. The poem certainly is not unworthy of Marguerite and she did discuss loving God with whole heart, being unified in and through Christ (which she contrasted with the infidelity of others), bearing up under tribulations, and so on in letters to her brother and Sigismund von Hohenlohe in 1525; see chapter 8, notes 80, 84, 91, and 93.

252

chapter seven – from meaux to madrid

his poetry (1533 and 1538); the rondeau and catechism in Marguerite’s manuscript were evidently never printed, though, ironically, the treatise on confession reached the public as an anonymous tract in 1530. The very creation of the two poems exemplifies that though clandestine and long-suffering, the network was not idle while suffering torment from “tyrants.” This chapter and the following one aim to shed light on the network’s formation, major activities, and impact in the 1520s. Sources reveal that, circa 1524, a far-flung group knit together around Lefèvre and Marguerite. Its members did not merely admire Luther; they actively collaborated with German reformers in order to bring a shared vision of religious renewal to France. From that time forward, French evangelicals were, as they saw it, ‘bearing their crosses’ in an effort to propagate evangelical views within the Most Christian Realm. Calling it “Christ’s cause,” “the gospel,” and like terms, they tried to advance their program through six interrelated projects: 1) preaching; 2) printing religious books; 3) nourishing evangelical conventicles; 4) protecting their brethren from prosecution; 5) promoting members to positions of influence; and 6) advocating “evangelical politics” at the French court. When examined in detail, these activities reveal that the network was trying to appropriate the fruits of German Reformation for France in a way suited to their circumstances and in accord with their distinctive ideas about the goal of reform and the work of God in the world. Refocusing scholarly debate from a piecemeal assessment of individuals—primarily Lefèvre, Briçonnet, Farel, Roussel, and Marguerite—and their doctrines to an analysis of their collaboration reveals a far more unified movement than scholars have hitherto been willing to accept. This interpretation validates the Navarrian Network’s sense of themselves (the nos and nous in the poems above) as a conjoined group that agreed upon and sought to inculcate a coherent body of evangelical doctrine. The most divisive disagreements between them were strategic, concerning how stridently they should combat false doctrines. Their strategies, by turns more or less radical, were rooted in different circumstances and personalities, as well as contrasting beliefs about what God demanded or would enable them to do. In the face of ongoing persecution, some members split off from the group adhering to Marguerite even though they shared similar goals. Accordingly, any account of their story must proceed from an understanding of the political context that regulated the climate of repression. From 1524 to 1530, the long drawn-out conclusion to the

the network knits together, –

253

first Valois-Hapsburg war dominated French public life. Events divide the period into three stages.5 1. Formal fighting had commenced in the summer of 1521 and dragged on through a series of French setbacks. In the summer of 1524, combat escalated into an all or nothing showdown as Francis I’s most powerful vassal, constable Charles of Bourbon, who had defected the previous autumn, entered the lists as the commander of a large imperial army. With both sides committing all their resources, open hostilities came to a decisive halt on 24 February 1525 at Pavia, where Francis I led his army to utter defeat. He and a few nobles survived with their lives, but not their freedom. 2. The king’s captivity, lasting until March 1526, constituted a second period during which France was left with a regency government, no firm peace established, and an uncertain future. 3. The war moved into a third phase when Francis I bought his release by signing the exacting Treaty of Madrid. To ensure its fulfillment in France, Francis was allowed to exchange places in captivity with his two eldest sons. Upon reaching French soil, he repudiated the agreement and spent the next four years trying to beat down the emperor’s demands and to free his sons, alternately by war, attrition, and negotiation. In that vulnerable position, Francis needed as many foreign allies as he could muster—particularly the pope, without whose help he could not defeat or appease the emperor. During these three phases, the political climate changed for evangelicals from bad to worse and back to bad. They had little room to maneuver as France entered the decisive months of the war in the fall of 1524. The royal court, which had successfully blocked attacks on them in 1523, was increasingly preoccupied and needed to maintain good relations with the pope. Evangelicals rightly feared for their future as conservatives continued to investigate their activities in preparation for a new round of trials.6 After Francis was captured, conservatives wrested control of religious policy from the crown. The bounds of safety for evangelicals quickly narrowed, snapping shut as their protector, Marguerite, left on “pilgrimage” to Spain to negotiate her brother’s release. In October 1525, the parlement ordered the arrest of the principal members of the Meaux group.

5

For a magisterial account of the several stages of the war, see Knecht, Renaissance Warrior, chapters 8–13. 6 French evangelicals note either the threat or examples of repression in almost every letter. See the sources cited in the next section and passim below.

254

chapter seven – from meaux to madrid

Some escaped, many stood trial, and the rest were forced into silence. When Francis I returned from captivity the situation improved, since Marguerite convinced him to intervene in their favor once again. Yet, until his children returned in 1530 upon fulfillment of the Treaty of Cambrai (1529), evangelicals were barely able to breathe their views in private, let alone resume their public campaign. During these years, Marguerite ordered network members to refrain from giving conservatives occasion to sound the alarm bell of heresy, which would disrupt Francis I’s relations with the pope. Yet she encouraged them to operate covertly. Their only hope for future success was indeed “to suffer the present age,” while awaiting freer days ahead. During this tyranny of silence, they had no French Hercules to champion them, only a Caesar who would brook no insubordination from either them or their tormentors.

Birth of the Network: An International “Fraternal Alliance” By 1524, French people who had been inspired by the German Hercules and other less muscular religious heroes such as Erasmus and Lefèvre had begun collaborating. A rich dossier of correspondence from the period 1524 to 1527 affords a remarkably detailed picture, unsurpassed thereafter, of the inner life of this network. Some five score men and women appear working together as evidenced in over two hundred letters: an association of leaders whose followers remain unnamed and uncounted.7 The fellowship of the elect, to which the rondeau “While loving God with whole heart” appeals, was far more extensive than Marguerite’s immediate circle. This fraternal alliance was international from its very beginning.8 By the end of 1524, anchored in France at Meaux and at the court, the network had active members in Paris, Alençon, Bourges, Mâcon, Lyon, and Grenoble. Over France’s eastern boarder, it had exile havens in Southern Germany and Switzerland, where Guillaume Farel acted as the unofficial leader of expatriate evangelicals.

7

There were over two hundred active participants in the network over the period 1520–1550. 8 For but one instance their frequent use of the lexicon of ‘brotherhood,’ see below at note 20.

the network knits together, –

255

Before 1524, it is not known whether the network existed as such, but its roots were surely in place. During the first years of the Meaux experiment, Lefèvre and his disciples were in contact with reformist circles at Poitiers and Paris.9 For lack of sources, it is impossible to determine how much farther the Fabrists’ influence extended via their numerous former students, colleagues, and admirers. As for their international ties, despite having well-formed connections prior to 1521, the Meaux group and circle of humanists in Paris, including Berquin, were not in touch with German humanists and reformers again until 1524.10 The Valois-Hapsburg war interrupted communications.11 At least, and perhaps at best, they were able to keep abreast of foreign events. In his New Testament prefaces of 1523, Lefèvre alluded to the Europe-wide progress of the gospel, that is, the movement rallying behind Luther, as if it was common knowledge. Meanwhile, a small number of French adherents to Luther’s cause had departed from the southeastern corner of the realm to establish contact with the reformers of Switzerland and the Empire. By early 1523, François Lambert, followed by Anémond de Coct and Claude de Tauro, made their way on a sort of converts’ pilgrimage to Wittenberg.12 To that point, although none of them had been corresponding with the Meaux group or Marguerite’s entourage, a chain of human contacts

9

See chapter 5, at note 58. Prior to 1524, the correspondence of Erasmus, Luther, Zwingli, Oecolampadius, Capito, and the Blarer and Amerbach brothers, which reveals much about the network’s subsequent development, contains no evidence that the Meaux group or other members of the network in Paris were in contact with any German evangelicals or humanists. 11 As Glareanus reported from Paris to Zwingli in Zurich in December 1521, because of the outbreak of the Valois-Hapsburg War, he had had no news about Luther and thought it newsworthy to mention the Faculty of Theology’s condemnation of Luther, which had occurred eight months earlier in April. See ZW 7, no. 193, 482–483. 12 For a concise summary of Lambert’s life and work, see Reinhard Bodenmann, preface to “Bibliotheca Lambertiana” in Pour retrouver François Lambert: bio-bibliographie et études, ed. Pierre Fraenkel, Bibliotheca Bibliographica Aureliana 108 (BadenBaden & Bouxwiller: Éditions Valentin Koerner, 1987), 9–213; 19–35. Nathaniel Weiss consecrated many articles to the early Reformation in France, with detailed but rather piecemeal references, to all its major figures. For Coct and Tauro, see his “Guillaume Farel: ses premiers travaux 1521–1524,” BSHPF 67 (1919), 179–214, esp. 183–187; “Les débuts de la Réforme en France d’après quelques documents inédits, les premiers missionnaires. Pierre de Sébiville, Michel d’Arande, Aimé Meigret (1523–1524),” BSHPF 70 (1921), 197–212, esp. 197–205, and his contribution with J. Meyhoffer, “Farel ouvrière de la Réforme française . . . (1521–1525)” in Guillaume Farel, 1489–1565: biographie nouvelle écrite d’après les documents originaux par groupe d’historiens, professeurs et pasteurs de Suisse, de France et d’Italie (Neuchâtel and Paris, 1930; repr. Geneva: Slatkine, 1978), 111–131; 113–114. 10

256

chapter seven – from meaux to madrid

linked them indirectly. François Lambert had been a leading preacher in the Observant Franciscan house at Avignon. After his superiors discovered his stash of Lutheran tracts, he fled. Armed with a letter of recommendation from an anonymous patron in southwest France, Lambert secured lodging with Lefèvre’s close friend, Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa von Nettesheim, just over the border in Geneva.13 Agrippa, in turn, introduced Lambert to an international circuit of humanists and reformers, who hosted him all the way to Wittenberg.14 Anémond de Coct was from Guillaume Farel’s native Dauphiné, where they had met sometime in 1522. Before leaving for Germany with Claude de Tauro, Coct converted Pierre de Sébiville, a noted reformist preacher in the region’s capital, Grenoble. In 1523, while at Wittenberg, the three Frenchmen formulated ambitious plans to promote the evangelical movement in Savoy, France, and Italy.15 Luther and Spalatin encouraged and aided them, even finding Lambert a wife shortly after he threw off the frock, but the Frenchmen did not stay long. In the summer of 1523, Tauro and Coct journeyed south with letters written by Lambert and Luther to the duke of Savoy and courtiers in France. From then on, they used Zurich, Basel, and Strasbourg as their bases of operations. In December 1523, at Lambert’s

13 Lambert evidently sought a safe haven in France before going abroad, since the letter of recommendation to [Agrippa] for “bonus hic pater” [Lambert], is dated 5 June 1522 from Dax, a small city in southwestern France (Aquitaine) near Bayonne: Herminjard 1, no. 51, 100. The anonymous recommendation for Lambert is curious. Dax is hundreds of miles in the opposite direction from Geneva. Nor is Dax known on any other count as an early center of evangelicalism. Whoever his patron may have been, Lambert certainly had an established circle of friends and family in Avignon and Lyon who were in regular contact with Basilius and Boniface Amerbach at Basel, who had studied in Paris and Avignon. After his departure in 1522, Lambert’s relation (affinis), Jean Montaigne, and another named Capal kept up contact between their friends at Avignon and Lyon and the Amerbach in Basel. For their letters between 1523 and 1525, see AK 2, no. 777, 294; no. 924, 433; no. 962, 472–482; AK 3, no. 1013, 25–26; no. 1019, 36–37. The presence of Lambert’s anonymous friend at Dax may explain Farel’s otherwise inscrutable visit to Guyenne [Aquitaine] in 1523 and decision while there to leave France for Basel, in effect following Lambert’s footsteps. See Guillaume Farel: biographie nouvelle, 115–116. 14 On 17 June 1522, Agrippa recommended “bonum hunc patrem” [Lambert] to Capito at Strasbourg as “diligens Minister verbi Dei,” Herminjard 1, no. 52, 101–102. Two years later, in December 1524, Lambert recapitulated this circle of communication, writing from Strasbourg to Agrippa in order to extend Capito’s greetings and inquire about the progress of the gospel in Geneva, see Herminjard 1, no. 133, 317. For Lambert’s onward journey, see Bodenmann, “Bibliotheca Lambertiana,” 19–23. 15 See Herminjard 1, nos. 61, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70, 75, and 79.

the network knits together, –

257

request, Luther solicited a position for him in Strasbourg so that he could promote the reform in France closer to home.16 Sometime in late 1523, Farel joined them abroad, landing at Basel.17 Beginning in late 1523, these expatriates and their hosts, Zwingli at Zurich, Oecolampadius at Basel, and Capito and Bucer at Strasbourg, entered into a lively correspondence with their confreres back home, most importantly with Farel’s scholarly family: Lefèvre, Roussel, as well as his former colleagues and students from the College of Cardinal Lemoine in Paris. The Navarrian Network was born, an international solidarity from the start. The remains of their cross-border correspondence are our main source for reconstructing the network’s existence in France. Over the next years, communications flowed along a central artery extending from Zurich through Basel, Strasbourg, Lyon, where Marguerite resided with the royal court from October 1524 to August 1525, up to Meaux and Paris. Information did not travel, however, in a linear relay, but dispersed along the main trunk and other by-ways through a web of contacts. Individual writers representing their local cell passed on news about the activities of their immediate brethren as well as those farther afield, and, in turn, solicited similar reports from their correspondents. A simplified diagram of this far-flung, yet densely integrated network can be drawn by following one of the first strands in their communications. In late 1523, at Anémond de Coct’s request, Ulrich Zwingli wrote a letter of encouragement to Pierre de Sébiville in Grenoble, who was being troubled for his evangelical preaching. Entreating Sébiville to stand firm, Zwingli couched his entreaty in the hope that the pietas Christi might advance in France as much as it had in Germany.18 In

16 Lambert headed south against Luther’s advice and despite his offer of further help at Wittenberg. See Luther’s recommendation on his behalf to Nicolas Grebel, WA Br 3, no. 691, 200–201; Herminjard 1, no. 80, 170–171. 17 Weiss places Farel’s arrival at Basel towards the summer of 1523, but this seems unlikely since Oecolampadius, Erasmus, Zwingli, and Capito do not note his presence until early 1524. Moreover, the letters to him from the Meaux group from January 1524 (see below) indicate that he had only just arrived there. See Guillaume Farel: biographie nouvelle, 115–120. 18 For Zwingli’s letter to Sébiville, see ZW 8, no. 325, 142–147; Herminjard 1, no. 82, 173–177. Sometime before 28 December 1524, Zwingli and Anémond de Coct wrote another two lost letters to Sébiville perhaps in response to news of his retraction after investigation. See Herminjard 1, no. 132, 313–316, 314. For the larger context, see Weiss, “Les débuts de la Réforme en France d’après quelques documents inédits,”

258

chapter seven – from meaux to madrid

February 1524, Coct published Zwingli’s letter along with a letter from Luther to the duke of Savoy.19 Such publicity may not have strengthened Sébiville’s position versus his persecutors, but it did signal publicly the support of the two leading German reformers for the evangelical cause in France and Savoy. In March 1524, Oecolampadius followed up with private letters of encouragement to Sébiville as well as a certain nobleman of Coct’s acquaintance named John, who was influential at court.20 Later that year, Sébiville reported back to Coct at Zurich about the severe persecution that he and other evangelicals in France had been enduring. Many had fallen away from their fellowship, and yet some remained steadfast. His chief supporters, he noted, were the group gathered around Marguerite d’Alençon at Lyon, led by Antoine Papillon, Michel d’Arande, and Antoine Du Blet. Beyond them, Sébiville reported that Aimé Galbert, Coct’s kinsman, remained steadfast and passed on a rumor, a false one it turns out, that Briçonnet and Lefèvre had removed images at Meaux.21 BSHPF 70 (1921), 197–212, who cites the printed edition of Sébiville’s retraction, 203, n. 2: Abjuratio heresis, Lutheriane facta per fratrem Petrum de Sibiville, religiosum ordinis minorum. Et sententia diffinitiva contra eum lata in curia spirituali sedis episcopalis Gracianopolis (Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Université de Paris, Rés. XVIe, 795, no. 20). 19 In hoc libello contenta. Annemundi Cocti equitis Galli ad lectorem epistola. Christianissimi doctoris Martini Lutheri ad illustrissimum principem Carolum Sabaudiae ducem epistola. Huldrici Zuinglii Tigurini episcopi vigilantissimi ad Petrum Sebivillam Gratianopolitianum ecclesiasten epistola. Praedicabitur hoc Evangelium regni in universo orbe, in testimonium omnibus gentibus et tunc veniet consumatio. Matthaei 24 ([Zurich: Christoph Froschauer], February [1524]). See WA 3, no. 657, 148–154. 20 Based on Coct’s favorable report, Oecolampadius speaks of [Sébiville] as being of “nostrae fraternitatis,” 9 March 1524, Brief Oekolampads 1, no. 189, 273–274 and Herminjard 1, no. 96, 203–205. For Oecolampadius’s letter of the same day to “Johannes,” see Brief Oekolampads 1, no. 188, 270–272. The editors suggest Giovanni Francesco Porporato at the court of the duke of Savoy as the most likely recipient. The mention of Anémond de Coct in both letters written on the same day, and that the first was sent to Sébiville, however, suggest that the second went to another Frenchman. Jean Morelet Du Museau is a more likely candidate as the recipient. He was a finance minister and French ambassador to the Swiss cantons from 1523–1524 and related to Guillaume Briçonnet by marriage. His near relation (son?), Claude, had been a student of Nicholas Bérault and Guillaume Budé in Paris. In 1524, both Budé on his behalf and this Claude Morelet himself wrote to Erasmus in Basel. Furthermore, a few months later, on 31 July [1524], Oecolampadius was corresponding with one of these “Morelets.” See, Allen 5, no. 1354, 270 ff.; Brief Oekolampads 1, no. 206, 295–296; Herminjard 1, no. 108, 248–250; and, for Jean Morelet Du Museau’s ambassadorship, CAF 9, 75. See note 22 for Coct’s mention of “Johannem meum” who may or may not be the same person. 21 Sébiville’s letter was dated on the “feast day of the innocents,” 28 December 1524. His information about Meaux was grossly exaggerated but not unfounded. See below at

the network knits together, –

259

The information in this correspondence points to the existence of an evangelical group in the Dauphiné made up of the friends and family of Lambert, Sébiville, Farel, Coct, and Tauro, about which little evidence survives for this period.22 Next, to the north at Lyon was a group that combined locals, such as Antoine Du Blet, a rich merchant who accompanied Farel on a tour to see the major reformers in 1524,23 and courtiers in Marguerite’s train. Looking at this group more closely, one finds that at about the same time that Sébiville wrote to Coct in Zurich, their ally at Lyon, Antoine Papillon,24 a member of the royal Grand Conseil and a protégé of Marguerite, wrote an upbeat report to Zwingli about the evangelical cause at court. He notes that despite heavy opposition, Marguerite stood firm and was aided by a growing circle. Its leaders, he claimed, included himself, Marguerite’s almoner Michel d’Arande, Jacques Groslot (the bailli of Orleans),25 and the learned Pierre Amy, who was a friend of Lefèvre and Konrad Pellikan.26 The

note 146 for acts of iconoclasm at Meaux and Herminjard 1, no. 132, 313–316, 315. 22 On 2 September [1524], Anémond de Coct wrote to Farel that he had received a letter from his brother and that “In dies expecto a nostris [in France or the Dauphiné] literas per Joannem meum. Deus det dextrae suppetias!” Herminjard 1, no. 120, 282–283. Subsequently, Farel’s brother Gauchier, their family members, and others from the region, including the Waldensian community, which would finance the first edition of Olivétan’s French translation of the Bible, were leading agents in turning the Dauphiné into one of the French strongholds of Protestantism. Good evidence for their activity only survives after circa 1530. 23 Du Blet supplied Lefèvre with books from Germany (Herminjard 1, no. 98, 206–209; excerpt Brief Oekolampads 1, no. 203, 289). Shortly after 15 May 1524, he and Farel left Basel with a letter of recommendation from Oecolampadius to Luther, but only made it as far as Zurich where they had an interview with Zwingli. See Brief Oekolampads 1, no. 196, 280–282; WA Br 3, no. 745, 293–295; Herminjard 1, no. 101, 215–216; and for Lefèvre and Roussel’s acknowledgment on 6 July 1524 of a letter from Farel with a report on their meeting at Zurich, see Herminjard 1, no. 103, 219–228 and no. 104, 231–240; Schmidt, Gérard Roussel, 171–178; Brief Oekolampads 1, no. 203, 290–291 (excerpt). 24 ZW 8, no. 346, 221–225; Herminjard 1, no. 125, 294–298. See Weiss, “Les débuts de la Réforme en France,” BSHPF 70 (1921), 211 for the identification of these and several other evangelicals mentioned by Sébiville. 25 If Groslot was not already Marguerite’s master of requests by late 1524, he soon would be (as early as 1526), and was obviously working closely with her in 1524. Thereafter, Marguerite frequently entrusted him with sensitive missions on behalf of evangelicals. In 1526, she sent him to Paris to see to Berquin’s release from prison as well as to secure a disputed legacy in Guillaume Farel’s favor, despite his being under suspicion of heresy and in exile. See Lefranc, Comptes, 71 and 82; Scheurer 1, 332 n. 2. 26 In July 1524, Lefèvre mentioned to Farel that he was passing on a letter from Konrad Pellikan to Pierre Amy, who was residing with François Du Moulin de

260

chapter seven – from meaux to madrid

remaining leads in Papillon and in Sébiville’s letters connect them, albeit less closely, to the Meaux group in the north and its many associates in Paris and beyond. If one were to trace all the people and their relations in the extensive correspondence of Farel and the Meaux group during 1524–1525, which will be mined for other purposes below, the network’s organizational diagram would become denser with additional nodes connected to these main centers and more interconnections between them but not alter much in shape.

The French Evangelical Reform Program and the German Connection The letters just cited demonstrate that, although the network was widespread, its members considered themselves to be a group working on a common project to promote reform in France. They looked to the Meaux group and Marguerite’s court circle for leadership and admired German evangelicals, to whom they had lines of communication via their expatriate brethren. Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples’ first known letter to Guillaume Farel offers a rich and symbolic starting point for assessing the goals and methods of the French evangelicals, reform program. This inaugural exchange between two leaders of the nascent network broaches the major problems and activities that would preoccupy them over the coming years.27 On January 13, 1524, Lefèvre responded to a letter (now lost) from Farel, who had recently landed at Basel. Lefèvre begins by congratulating him for fleeing France: “You have wisely distanced yourself from the hate of those who wish us evil, to take up residence among true Christians.”28 Turning to the Meaux reform, he reports that, in the

Rochefort, the royal almoner and Lefèvre’s champion during the Magdalene affair. See Herminjard 1, no. 103, 225. 27 Lefèvre’s letter to Farel also deserves special attention because it was long lost and its telling content does not yet function in scholarship. Stolen from the BnF in the nineteenth century, this letter resurfaced in Neuchâtel in the 1980s. See G. Berthoud and A. Labhardt, “Lettre de Lefèvre d’Étaples à Guillaume Farel du 13 janvier 1524: Présentation et traduction,” Librarium [Zurich] 26 (1983), 216–17. This article contains a French translation and photograph of the original Latin letter. Cf. Herminjard 1, no. 85, 183–184. 28 “Tu as agi sagement en te soustrayant à la haine de ceux qui nous veulent du mal, pour te retirer parmi les chrétiens.” Berthoud, “Lettre de Lefèvre d’Étaples à Guillaume Farel,” 216. This statement, as well as the fact that Lefèvre did not hesitate to turn over

the network knits together, –

261

time since Farel had left, they had distributed their recently completed French translation of the New Testament to the laity. Since receiving it, the common folk had become so avid for the word of God that they would now rather suffer anything than be deprived of it. Meanwhile, the Faculty of Theology, whose members were “persecuting Christ not men,” had published a condemnation of propositions that it had invented and attributed to the Meaux group. The ministers at Meaux, Lefèvre protests, had preached the words of Scripture purely and explained its meaning without controversy, except for Pierre Caroli and Martial Mazurier, members of the Faculty of Theology, who had railed against the exaggerated cult of the saints, abuses of the Mass, and the simony of priests. Consequently, these two had been excluded from the ranks of the faculty. As for the package of books that Farel had sent, Lefèvre told him that he had turned them over to Briçonnet—evidently in obedience to standing policy—explaining that they came from their former colleague. Since the bishop had departed immediately thereafter, Lefèvre had not yet been able to read them. In the meantime, he was hoping to receive from “Germania” Luther’s translation of the Old Testament and a certain (nescio) Philipp Melanchthon’s Commentary on John. “Happy are you,” interjects Lefèvre, “to be in a place where you can keep current with all that!” Finally, to aid his ongoing Bible translation project, Lefèvre asked Farel to have the edition of the Psalms and Prophets in Aramaic copied for him. Lefèvre closes with greetings to Johannes Oecolampadius and Ulrich Hugwald. In this letter, Lefèvre looks both inward to France and outward to the Empire. He is concerned about persecution at home and rejoices at the freedom in Germania. Preoccupied with the program of evangelical preaching at Meaux, he is enthusiastic about the laity’s reception of the translated Scriptures. He is equally eager to read the latest books of German reformers as resources for his own writing projects, which served those proselytizing efforts. The rest of the network’s correspondence is filled with a similar admixture of topics. Concentrating on the larger network, the central task here is to describe their program, its development, implementation, and effect on the laity. Any attempt to assess this history will repeatedly encoun-

to Briçonnet a package of books sent by Farel and freely named him as the sender, seems to refute the thesis that Farel left Meaux because Briçonnet had withdrawn his license to preach.

262

chapter seven – from meaux to madrid

ter the problem that has rightly dominated every attempt to interpret the early Reformation in France: what and how much did French evangelicals owe to the German reformers? That question will be born in mind throughout the following account, which will focus on the network’s praxis, allowing the issue of their doctrinal similarities to and differences from the German reformers to arise in due course. A firm understanding of the network’s program is best achieved by turning to its core: preaching. Preaching at Meaux, Bourges, and Beyond Since 1521, Guillaume Briçonnet, the Meaux group, and Marguerite had made preaching the centerpiece of their reform program. In the early months of 1524, as the bishop drew back from Marguerite’s contentious attempt to have d’Arande preach at Bourges, she and the rest of the network pressed forward, there and farther afield. The results of their 1524 Lenten preaching campaign heartened evangelicals far and near. Having heard precise reports from France, Farel recounted the impressive tally: Gerard Roussel preached steadfastly at Meaux, as did Michel d’Arande at Alençon and Bourges, as well as Aimé Meigret OP and another unnamed preacher at Lyon.29 Meanwhile, other members of the network spread the news that Sébiville had continued 29 Dated 2 April 1524 from Basel, Farel conveyed to his former student, Cornellius Scheffer, who was with his employer, Christian II of Denmark, in Wittenberg, very recent and remarkably precise information about the situation in France, especially d’Arande’s troubles at Bourges during Lent and their outcome. Farel must have received this information from other now lost letters from the Meaux group, for no other letter from any French evangelical exists between Lefèvre’s January letter and this one. For example, a few days after Farel wrote to Scheffer from Basel, on 6 July 1524, Lefèvre further informed him that d’Arande had been assisted at Alençon by another member of the Meaux group, Jean Du Mesnil. “. . . Joanne Mesnillio, qui comes fuit Michaëli, ducatus Alenconiensis apostolo.” Herminjard 1, no. 103, 219–228; 222. How Farel picked up contact with Scheffer at Wittenberg is another unknown, perhaps explained by Coct and Tauro’s recent stay there. A great deal of correspondence of Farel and the rest of the network is missing from this period despite the many extant letters. See, Herminjard 1, no. 97, 205–206 (excerpt), citing “J.E. Kappens [=Kapp], Nachlese einiger zur Erläuterung der Reformations-Geschichte nützlich (Leipzig, 1727), [II] 602” for a letter, which is missing in Quadroni, Farel corr. At about the same time, Farel wrote another letter (if it is not the same as the one just cited) about his dislike of Erasmus to an anonymous recipient. Since the letter is only known through a copy owned by Georg Spalatin, the chancellor of Electoral Saxony, the recipient may have been Scheffer again, and in any case was certainly someone in close contact with the Saxon evangelical establishment. See Guillaume Farel: Biographie nouvelle, 125–126 and n. 1 (letter missing in Quadroni, Farel corr).

the network knits together, –

263

to preach in Grenoble despite growing opposition. Meigret joined him for a guest sermon on 25 April, fresh from a successful preaching tour at Lyon.30 This scattering of high profile preachers resembles the missionary program that the court had announced in the autumn of 1523 but never carried out. Although network members did not claim that Marguerite specifically commissioned the others besides her almoner d’Arande, they described these preachers as working to the same end and praised her shortly thereafter for protecting them when they came under increasing fire from conservatives.31 After Easter 1524, opposition to this preaching campaign built rapidly. Conservatives in Grenoble and Lyon charged Meigret with heresy within days of his sermons.32 The effects were soon felt. On 15 May 1524, Nicolas Le Sueur, the élu or chief royal tax official at Meaux, reported to Farel the mixed news that Roussel continued to announce the pure gospel but many others preachers were falling silent.33 Farel’s former student, Jean Canaye, complained in July from Paris that, while Roussel’s sermons had great success at Meaux, he had only visited the withering evangelical group in the capital twice since Farel’s departure without preaching either time.34 Perhaps sensitive to such criticism, both Lefèvre and Roussel signaled to Farel during that same month that Caroli announced the gospel “well-enough” in Paris at Saint-Paul’s on every feast day. By 5 August, the Faculty of Theology was investigating

30

Herminjard 1, 206, 228, 248–250, 281, 282. A short while after these events, on [18 February 1526], in a letter from Metz sent to a recipient at Strasbourg, Jean Bruno de Niedbruck [Dr. Johann von Niedbruck] praised Marguerite as a “good evangelical” who sponsored Meigret’s public preaching at Lyon in late 1524 (“alss dess Küenigs schwester gut evangelisch ist, hat sie ein evangelischen prediger predigerordens genant Magret . . .”). His sermons reportedly attracted thousands of listeners. As the discoverers of this important account note, Bruno’s information regarding Meigret’s sermons and Marguerite’s sponsorship of him may not be totally correct. The letter does corroborate, however, that Marguerite had a reputation among evangelicals of the empire as one of their own, and offers further circumstantial evidence of her sponsorship of the 1524 evangelical preaching campaign in France. See Jean [Bruno] de Niedbruck’s report in Jean Rott and Olivier Millet, “Miettes historiques strasbourgeoises,” 255–257. 32 Henri Hours, “Procès d’hérésie contre Aimé Maigret (Lyon-Grenoble: 1524),” BHR 19 (1957), 1443, with documents relating to the investigation. 33 Herminjard 1, no. 102, 216–219, 218–219; Schmidt, Gérard Roussel, no. 1, 169–171; Brief Oekolampads 1, no. 203, 289 (excerpt). 34 Herminjard 1, no. 105, 240–243, 242; French translation in Nathaniel Weiss, “Guillaume Farel: ses premiers travaux 1521–1524,” BSHPF 68 (1919), 179–214; 190–192. 31

264

chapter seven – from meaux to madrid

his sermons.35 Two weeks later the doctors of the faculty took its first critical look at Roussel’s sermons at Meaux. The chancellor of the church of Paris reported that, when preaching to the people on the feast day of the Assumption of the Virgin, Roussel had maintained that whether Mary had been taken up bodily into heaven or not was irrelevant; the important matter was to understand the spiritual message in the Epistles and Gospels for the feast day.36 The faculty asked the parlement to take up the matter, but the investigation went no further. Meanwhile, during that summer, Meigret was back in Paris, having put off his Dominican habit—if not a sermon, a public statement in itself—to respond to the Faculty of Theology’s investigation of him.37 By Advent of 1524, evangelical preachers were under heavy attack. In mid-December, Anémond de Coct received a fresh progress report at Basel: Michel d’Arande had preached without incident at Mâcon.38 Less fortunate, Sébiville had been arrested but then released at Grenoble. The good news, Coct reported, was that Sébiville had been offered the pulpit at Lyon for the following Lenten season. Two weeks later, Sébiville explained that the situation was less rosy than his supporters at Zurich had been led to believe. While “secret friends” had indeed liberated him,39 he had been forbidden to preach again in Grenoble on pain of

35

Friday, 5 August 1524, see Farge, Registre 1, session 36B, 44–45. 19 August 1524: “Deinde quod cum multe materie fidei tractarentur in facultate . . . Dixit [the chancellor] preterea se audivisse virum honestum et gravem qui referebat quod, in sermonem die ultimo Assumptionis in civitate Meldensi, quidam nomine Geraldus, thesaurarius ecclesie, pro nunc predicando ad populum, hec aut similia verbo protulisset: quod sive sit assumpta Virgo in corpore vel non, non est curandum sed magis insistendum expositioni evangelii et epistole. Deinde loquens de veneratione sanctorum et ipsam attenuens, dixit, “Objicietis michi quod in ipso habetur, ‘Laudate Dominum in sanctis ejus,’ respondeo quod in hebreo habetur ‘in sancto’ et non ‘in sanctis.’ Si quis sanctos vellit (sic) laudare, agat in cimbalis bene sonantibus.” Farge, Registre 1, 47, 40 B. 37 Coct reported Meigret’s change of garb in a postscript to Lefèvre’s letter to Farel of July 6, 1524, Herminjard 1, no. 103, 219–228, and 228. For the faculty’s investigations, see Farge, Registre 1, sessions 32B, 33A, 34B, 35B, and 36C. 38 “Toutes fois, Valgris, est venu, lequel dit que Maigret est prins à Lion. Mais Madame d’Alençon y est: loué soit Dieu! Sébiville est deslivré et preschera ce caresme à S. Paul à Lion, ainsi qu’il avoit pièça [depuis longtemps] esté prié.” And again: “Maigret a presché à Lion maulgré les prestres et moynes. Arandius presche à Mascon.” Anémond de Coct to Farel from Basel, 17 December 1524, Herminjard 1, no. 130, 308–311: 309 and 311. 39 Archival sources from Grenoble reveal that the notables there did not desert Sébiville after he was forced to retract his views and was banned from preaching. On 9 January 1525, they sought to have him made a citizen of Grenoble and paid for the initial expenses of naturalization. They petitioned the general of the Franciscan Order 36

the network knits together, –

265

death.40 Meanwhile, Aimé Meigret published a programmatic apology for evangelical preaching along with the text of the sermon that he had delivered at Grenoble in April. When he took the pulpit again in Lyon during Advent, Louise of Savoy had him arrested.41 Meigret’s indictment on heresy charges signaled a severe downturn in the evangelicals’ fortunes. At the end of December 1524, the pope wrote to Louise to congratulate her for making an example of the “heretical preacher.”42 Shortly thereafter, in a plan devised by Chancellor Antoine Duprat, to which Meigret consented, his case was transferred from the court of the archbishop of Lyon to a new commission specially created to try his case, comprising two doctors from the Faculty of Theology and two hand-picked jurists from the Parlement of Paris, André Verjus and Philippe Pot. In April, with the parlement’s enthusiastic backing, Louise and Duprat asked the pope to elevate this special commission into a permanent inquisitorial court, a request that the pope granted on 20 May 1525.43 Thus, Meigret’s case and regency court’s initiative led to the creation of the juges délégués, who would pursue heresy vigorously over the next two years.44

to have him admitted to another convent. Their request evidently succeeded, since he was again preaching Lent in 1526 at Sisteron and was again coming under suspicion. Anémond de Coct’s father, Hughes, who was auditeur of the Chambre des Comptes of Grenoble, may have been one of Sébiville’s ‘secret friends.’ See A. Prudhomme, Simples notes sur Pierre de Sébiville, premier prédicateur de la Réforme à Grenoble (1514–1524) (Bourgoin: Vauvillez, 1884), 29, 38–39, 43–44; and J. J. Hémardinquer, “À propos du procès d’hérésie contre Aimé Meigret (Grenoble, 1524),” BHR 19 (1957), 480–481, citing G. de Manteyer, Pierre de Sébiville à Sisteron, 24 février–17 avril 1526 (Gap, 1944), 25 pp, extract from Bulletin de la Société d’études des Hautes-Alpes (1945). 40 Herminjard 1, no. 132, 313–316, 314. 41 On the content of Meigret’s Grenoble sermon, see pp. 296–298. 42 On 29 December [1524] the pope congratulated Louise on the arrest of the “Lutheran preacher” [Meigret]. See J. Fraikin, Nonciatures de Clément VII, 2 vols. (Paris: Firmin Didot et Cie and J. Gabalda, 1906 and 1926), vol. 1, appendix I, Bref de Clément VII à Louise de Savoie (Rome, 29 décembre 1525 [1524!]), 297–298. For the correct date and context, see Henri Hauser, “Un nouveau texte sur Aimé Meigret,” in Études sur la Réforme française (Paris: Picard, 1909), 69–80. 43 On 23 January 1525, the council of the archbishop of Lyon announced the news of the transfer of Meigret’s case to Noël Beda, Herminjard 1, no. 136, 323–325. 44 Meigret may have agreed to have his case tried by this commission hoping for a favorable judgment, like the one rendered by the special “three bishops” commission set up by Duprat a year earlier to overrule the Faculty of Theology’s articles against Lefèvre and the Meaux group. See chapter 6. James K. Farge argues that the Parlement of Paris provided the initial impetus for the establishment of the juges délégués based on the one established to hear Meigret’s case. See Farge, Registre 1, 79–80 and n. 9; idem, Orthodoxy, 181 and 258. The parlement may have seized on the opportunity, but the initiative and willingness of the court to

266

chapter seven – from meaux to madrid

While the Meigret affair was breaking, more newsworthy trouble for the network was brewing at Meaux.45 Shortly before Christmas 1524, commoners ripped down placards announcing a papal jubilee indulgence and distributed handbills that called the pope the Antichrist. Then, one night in early January, persons unknown cut down prayers to the Virgin and several saints, which were posted in the cathedral. Briçonnet cooperated with the Parlement of Paris’s investigation after each incident, ordering his flock to reveal the names of those responsible on pain of excommunication. By March, two preachers from Meaux, Jacques Pauvan and Antoine Saulnier, were imprisoned in Paris for their heretical preaching. On 18 March, with the help of Briçonnet, the parlement sentenced several commoners, including a wool-carder, Jean Le Clerc, not for heresy but for ‘great irreverence’ in having posted “ethicquettes” (handwritten placards?) which proclaimed that the pope had no power at all. For that crime, the court had them whipped through the streets of Paris and Meaux, branded with the fleur-de-lis on their faces, and banished. During the investigation into the disturbances at Meaux, though nothing came of the deposition, witnesses implicated Gérard Roussel in the distribution of the anti-papal placards, reporting that his servant had been seen delivering to another priest the leaflets that were later handed out when the indulgence placards were ripped down.46 Thus, Sébiville’s letter to Zurich in December 1524 accurately

ask for the pope’s permission were the crucial factors. The earliest involvement of the parlement noted was on 29 March 1525, but, already in January, the Council of Lyon had announced to Beda the exact outline for this special commission, which Antoine Duprat had conceived and whose parlementary representatives he had already chosen. These, as noted, were Philippe Pot, who was replaced upon death by Jacques de La Barde, and André Verjus. That the juges, parlement, and Faculty of Theology then thwarted the royal will until Francis I’s release was hardly the court’s initial plan, for after his return from captivity the king reconstituted the juges délégués with the pope’s permission, stocking it with his chosen men. 45 For the following account, see Veissière, Guillaume Briçonnet, 318–325. 46 The king’s prosecutor in Meaux informed the parlement that “Pierre Lorseau, grand chapelain de l’église, . . . dit . . . que depuis Noël dernier il a appris et entendu dire par honorable homme Hugues Tiersualt, marchand à Meaux, . . . que le serviteur de M. Gérard Roussel, . . . avait porté plusieurs chartes et papiers qu’il avait données à un certain prestre de Saint-Christophe, dans lesquels il y avait quelques diffamations touchant le pape, comme disait ledit Tiersault qu’il criait et qu’il paraissait que les livres diffamatoires contre le pape, affichés à la porte de l’église et autres lieux, avaient été tirés desdites chartes, que ledit Tiersault avait vu dans les mains dudit prêtre de Saint-Christophe, affirmant qu’il avait entendu dire ces choses, en présences d’Adam de Saint-Prix, Denis Roussot et Pierre Verdelot, prêtres.” Charles Schmidt, “Gérard Roussel, inculpé d’hérésie à Meaux, 1525,” BSHPF 10 (1861), 220. Obviously, Roussel

the network knits together, –

267

recorded the pulse of an aggressive iconoclastic movement at Meaux, if not the correct ministers responsible for animating the people. The network felt the danger rising and tried to surmount it. Just as the Meigret affair was breaking and commoners at Meaux began agitating, Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples dedicated his Commentary on the Catholic Epistles to Antoine Duprat. Having been convinced to do so by the reports of “many courtiers and learned men in the royal court,” he made an eloquent appeal to Duprat’s political interests and proclaimed that preaching the gospel throughout France would be the surest guarantee of domestic peace. Although he does not broach the topics directly, Lefèvre’s dedicatory epistle responds to the tumult at Meaux as well as to the court’s decision to back the prosecution of evangelical preaching. Lefèvre and his advisors at court, who were without doubt the group gathered around Marguerite, must have seen that the tide was turning against them, for he did not in fact publish the work for another two and a half years, and then, not as usual at Paris but at Basel (Cratander, 1527). Lefèvre’s reluctance to print his Commentary on the Catholic Epistles in 1525 reflects the fate of evangelical preaching during that year: it all but ceased in France. Sébiville evidently never took the pulpit in Lyon during Lent 1525.47 Only at Meaux and Paris did the Fabrist circle continued to preach, but they too were silenced one by one. Caroli was banned from preaching and lecturing in Paris. Mazurier was pursued for his efforts at Meaux. In August, Briçonnet forbade all preaching in the town and market of Meaux.48 After being brought to Paris in chains, Meigret was evidently freed during his trial, but by 25 September 1525, as Roussel reports, he had been jailed again.49 One week later,

had enemies among the clergy, but the details in this report are precise enough to make the accusation against him credible. 47 Sébiville later preached at Sisteron during Lent 1526, stirring up controversy yet again. His end is not known, but his name did appear on the Roman index as a leading heretical writer, though no works have survived from his pen. See note 39. 48 Veissière claims that Briçonnet halted preaching in order to prevent the spread of a recent epidemic. Even if he did make such a claim, one might rightly suspect that the investigation by the juges délégués of Mazurier and others, as well as Briçonnet’s loss in June and August of a series of decisions in his suit over preaching rights against the Franciscans of Meaux, had as much to do with his decision than public health concerns. See Dom [Michael Chrétien] Toussaints Du Plessis, Histoire de l’église de Meaux: avec des notes ou dissertations et les pièces justificatives, 2 vols. (Paris: Julien-Michel Gandouin, 1731), vol. 1, 278–280; cf. Veissière, Guillaume Briçonnet, 323. 49 Herminjard 1, no. 162, 389–392, 392; Schmidt, Gérard Roussel, no. 5, 185–187.

268

chapter seven – from meaux to madrid

on 3 October, the Parlement of Paris began an all-out offensive against the leaders of the Meaux reform. The high court of justice ordered the arrest of nine commoners from Meaux, the transfer of other suspected heretics from Briçonnet’s episcopal jail to Paris, as well as the arrest and indictment for heresy of Caroli, Mazurier, Roussel, the Franciscan Jean Prévost, Nicolas Mangin,50 and Lefèvre d’Étaples. Briçonnet was summoned to appear in court and Louise of Savoy instructed to send Michel d’Arande to them for questioning.51 After three years of repeated attempts, conservatives finally crushed the evangelical preaching campaign and its leadership at Meaux.52 Appropriating the German Reformation If preaching was the central pillar of the network’s program, they built much around it to make it a more complete house of learning. As Lefèvre’s first letter to Farel indicates, French evangelicals were following the German reformers with keen interest. What did they observe? What did they appropriate into their own program? In the first place, their morale was boosted by the success of their German confreres. In July 1524, Lefèvre thanked Farel, Oecolampadius, Pellikan, and Hugwald exuberantly for the letters and books they had sent to him, which, he said, consoled and rejoiced him beyond words in the hope that “Christ would make himself known in France as fully as he had in the rest of Europe.”53

50 Mangin was one of five ministers commissioned by Briçonnet to lecture on Romans to the people. See note 49. 51 Toussaints Du Plessis, Histoire de l’église de Meaux 2, 280–281: no. DLXVII, “Extrait des Registres du Parlement,” also quoted in extenso by Veissière, Guillaume Briçonnet, 348–350. 52 Briçonnet’s attempts to stave off the inquisition and his eventual capitulation are studied in Veissière, Guillaume Briçonnet, 348–268; idem, “Le procès de Guillaume Briçonnet au Parlement de Paris en 1525,” BSHPF 130 (1984), 5–27; idem, “Le procès de Guillaume Briçonnet au Parlement de Paris en 1525 II: quelques textes,” BSHPF 132 (1986), 543–560; and Samuel Berger, “Le procès de Guillaume Briçonnet au Parlement de Paris, en 1525,” BSHPF 44 (1895), 7–22. 53 The letters from these four reformers to Lefèvre are not extant. Herminjard 1, no. 103, 219–228; 220. Throughout their correspondence, network members repeatedly express their admiration for German evangelicals. For instance, Nicolas Le Sueur wrote to Farel, “Contratulamur vobis Germanis [including ‘Heleveticis’], et acceptam Deo ac Domino nostro Jesu Christo ferimus gratiam quae apud vos relucet, non tam multiplici Scripturae pura et Christiana professione, quam pharisiacae traditionis et servitutis contemptu, ac christianae libertatis (que spiritu et veritate constat) restitu-

the network knits together, –

269

While pursuing their preaching program, network members read the books of reformers and Catholic respondents for inspiration and guidance. The network’s correspondence for 1524, which, albeit lacunary, is the fullest of any year, contains identifiable references to over fifty such works (see appendix B III). If this sample is representative, network members were attempting to master large portions of the most recent literature of the German Reformation. In their letters, they mention having read or having tried to obtain scholarly and vernacular editions of the Bible as well as works by Brunfels, Bugenhagen, Erasmus, Farel, Hesshus, Lambert, Lonicer, Luther, Melanchthon, Myconius, Oecolampadius (10 titles!), Pellikan, and Zwingli. Given this reading list, it is not surprising to find that the Meaux group specifically affirmed having designed some parts of their reform program based on German models. Indeed, other parts, about whose origins there is no testimony, betray signs of German engineering as well. Consider again their carefully devised preaching campaign. In its fully developed form, the Meaux group’s program focused on the regular rhythm of Sunday and feast day services (i.e., not exclusively on the Lent and Advent preaching seasons). During the Mass, preachers read the epistle and gospel lessons in French and then expounded them in close exegetical sermons. Lefèvre’s New Testament translation was designed to serve as an integral part of this preaching-oriented service. Its last sixty pages contain a detailed lectionary table specifying (by incipit and excipit) the New Testament readings for all the Sundays and major feast days of the year.54 Lay people were thereby able, as Lefèvre instructs them in the preface, to study the New Testament passages that they would hear explained from the pulpit. The Meaux group did not intend their charges either to read Scripture alone or,

tione.” 15 May 1524, Herminjard 1, no. 102, 216–219, 217; Brief Oekolampads 1, no. 203, 289 (excerpt); Schmidt, Gérard Roussel, no. 1, 169–171. 54 “Table pour trouver promptement tant ou francoisque ou latin les evangiles, epistres et lecons contenues ou nouveau testament qui se disent en l’eglise es dimenches et jours de feste, et aussi es vigiles, jeunes, et rogations,” (Simon de Colines, 1523), eee1r. Taking up four quires (eee–hhh8), this table was an expensive addition either for the buyer or for Bishop Briçonnet who distributed them gratis to the needy. Some exemplars do not have the table, but one of these (BnF Rés. A 6414*) has a manuscript table of pericopes “selon notre usage.” For edition and bibliographical notes, see Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples, trans., Le Nouveau Testament: fac-similé de la première édition Simon de Colines, 1523, ed. M. A. Screech, 2 vols., Classiques de la Renaissance en France (East Ardsley, England: S. R. Publishers; New York: Johnson Reprint Co., 1970), xii–xvi.

270

chapter seven – from meaux to madrid

in place of the traditional exempla-filled homilies, to come to their plain didactic sermons unprepared. By July 1524, as Lefèvre indicated to Farel, the Meaux group had been practicing this Sunday schooling of the laity, complete with textbook, homework, and regular lectures, for quite some time.55 Turning to the foundation of their didactic preaching system—the use of vernacular Scripture readings during the service—the Meaux group quite likely took their inspiration, or at least received strong support, from Johannes Oecolampadius’s Quod expediat Epistolae et Evangelii lectionem in Missa vernaculo sermone plebi promulgari (1522).56 If Oecolampadius was not the one who specifically prompted the Meaux group to adopt vernacular lectionary readings prior to 1524, he certainly became an influential voice on the Meaux group’s program thereafter. Throughout 1524, they read his letters and books with great enthusiasm.57 In July 1524, based on Oecolampadius’s advice, Briçon-

55 “Nunc in tota dioecesi nostra, festis diebus, et maxime die dominica, legitur populo et epistola et evangelium lingua vernacula; et si paroecus alique exhortationis habet, ad epistolam aut evangelium, aut ad utrumque adjicet.” Herminjard 1, no. 103, 219–228, 221. The Meaux group continued to alter the liturgy after this time. Roussel was criticized for not saying the Ave Maria before preaching as was traditional. See Charles Schmidt, “Gérard Roussel, inculpé d’hérésie à Meaux, 1525,” BSHPF 10 (1861), 222. On 23 June 1524, Beda accused Mazurier of suppressing this rite and ‘cantus’ in the ‘Mass’ for the dead, substituting for them the Lord’s Prayer in the vernacular, adding, “Anima defuncti orat Deum pro nobis” (which twisted the usual words of the office); Farge, Registre 1, 98–99. The Meaux group did not, evidently, introduce a full vernacular rite for the Mass, for later, when at Strasbourg, Roussel remarked the vernacular Mass used there as a favorable innovation. See his letter to [Nicolas le Sueur] of [December 1525]: “In conventu populi nihil dicitur aut canitur quod non intelligatur ab omnibus.” Herminjard 1, no. 168, 408–415, 411–412. Cf. Quadroni, Farel corr., no. 45, 16, which identifies this letter as being sent by Lefèvre or Roussel to Farel and fails to note Herminjard’s identification, if only to refute it. I have verified that the letter cited by Quadroni (Geneva, BPU Latin 112, fols. 77–78) is the same letter that Herminjard identified, I believe correctly, as from Roussel to Le Sueur. Again, I have verified that Quadroni, Farel corr., 16, no. 43 [“Gérard Roussel to Farel,” December 1525, from Strasbourg] (Geneva, BPU Latin 111a, fol. 50.) is the same letter that Herminjard has published more correctly as [“Gérard Roussel to Guillaume Briçonnet,” December 1525, from Strasbourg], in Herminjard 1, no. 167, 404–408; and Schmidt, Gérard Roussel, no. 6, 188–191. 56 Guy Bedouelle and Bernard Roussel, “La lecture de la Bible en langue vivante au XVIe siècle: chronologie de quelques textes et faits marquants,” in Théorie et pratique de l’exégèse, ed. Francis Higman (Geneva: Droz, 1990), 62. 57 Roussel lauded Oecolampadius as one of the chief learned men of the day: “Ad quem modum et hoc etiam tempore quosdam sibi servat in bonis, quas vocant, literis, apprime doctos, inter quos arbitror esse Oecolampadium, qui, cum sit omni doctrinae genere cumulatissimus, ut vix haberi possit cui conferatur, totum se Christo permisit, ut illis neglectis quae mundus in precio habere solet, solum Christum amplexetur, magni-

the network knits together, –

271

net authorized Roussel and four other preachers to give daily public lessons on Romans and the Psalms according to the lectio continua. Caroli adopted a similar practice in Paris.58 A completing feature of the Meaux group’s preaching program was put in place in late 1525, just as it was coming under attack from the parlement. Lefèvre and his disciples published a model sermon book to aid less able preachers: the Meaux group’s well-known Epistres et Evangiles (Paris: Simon Du Bois, c. 1525).59 By publishing this work, which was a codification of their long-standing practices, they were disseminating their pedagogical program via print and, moreover, providing a textual substitute for their stymied effort to preach.60 The genre of the Epistres et Evangiles and the Meaux group’s intent in publishing it were, admittedly, hardly new developments in the history of homiletics. Sermon collections had long served as guides for parish priests and many were then available.61 In the 1520s, if conservatives preferred to publish the Latin sermons of reformist preachers

faciat.” To Farel, 6 July 1524, Herminjard 1, no. 104, 231–240; 223; Brief Oekolampads 1, no. 203, 290–291 (excerpt); Schmidt, Gérard Roussel, no. 2, 171–178. In this passage, Roussel alludes to Oecolampadius’s De passione Domini, de venerando et laudando Deo in Maria, de invocatione Divorum contra [Joannem] Fabrum. The enthusiasm for Oecolampadius was shared by a humanist circle in Paris centered on Guillaume Budé, Nicolas Bérault, and Pierre Petit. He received public accolades in Parisian reprints of two of his translations of John Chrysostom: Divi Joannis Chrysostomi . . . in totum Geneseos librum homiliae sexagintasex a Joanne Oecolampadio doc anno versae (Paris: Jean Petit, July 1524), dedicated by Pierre Petit to Michel de Boudet, bishop of Langres; and Divi Joannis Chrysostomi Psegmata quedam nuperrime a Joanne Oecolampaido in Latinum vesa (Paris: Jean Petit, September 1524), dedicated by Nicolas Bérault to François Poncher, bishop of Paris. Bérault and Petit reprinted these texts despite the Faculty of Theology’s denial of permission; Farge, Registre 1, 44, n. 87. See further the letters of Budé, Claude Morelet, and Oecolampadius in note 20. 58 Lefèvre to Farel, 6 July 1524, Herminjard 1, no. 103, 219–228; 222 and 227. 59 Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples et al., Épistres & Évangiles pour les cinquante & deux sepmaines de l’an: Fac-similé de la première édition Simon du Bois, ed. M. A. Screech (Geneva: Librairie Droz, 1964); idem, Epistres et Evangiles pour les cinquante et deux dimenches de l’an, ed. Guy Bedouelle and Franco Giacone (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976). 60 See above at note 27 for Lefèvre’s denial, in January 1524, that the Meaux group preached anything beyond the pure text of scripture, which accurately characterizes the style of sermon in their handbook. 61 Two major sermon collections in French were Nicolas of Lyra’s Les postilles et expositions des epsitres et evangiles dominicales, avecques des festes solennelles, trans. Pierre Desrey (Troyes, 1492, with many reprints) and Maurice de Sully’s Expositions des évangiles (Paris, 1522?). See Veissière, Guillaume Briçonnet, 309, citing Screech, ed., Épistres & Évangiles, introduction, 12–13; and Henri Meylan, “Lefèvre d’Étaples: les thèmes théologiques de les Épistres et Évangiles,” in Colloque de Tours: L’humanisme français au début de la Renaissance (Paris: J. Vrin, 1973), 185–192; 191–192.

272

chapter seven – from meaux to madrid

like Michel Menot to combat heresy,62 other well-established French postille collections remained available as well as the old stand-by sermon substitute, Gerson’s Opus tripartitum. Lefèvre and his disciples rejected these traditional models in favor of a new, exclusively Scripture-oriented sermon, which they considered better suited to instructing the laity in the pure gospel.63 As noted previously, Jean Le Comte de La Croix testified long afterwards that a new model preaching book had been in gestation since the Fabrists’ arrival at Meaux.64 Even so, just as Luther’s German New Testament had provided inspiration for Lefèvre’s translating efforts, so too Luther’s vernacular postille collections (1522 onwards) may have done the same for the Meaux group’s sermon handbook. After February 1525, when Bucer published the first installment of his Latin translation of Luther’s Aventspostille, which he dedicated to the “evangelical brothers dispersed in France,” the Meaux group would have been able to work with Luther’s text itself.65 The comparison, however, of the Meaux group’s sermon book with these possible models still needs to be undertaken.66 All evangelicals believed that didactic preaching was an essential first step to the spread of the gospel. Beyond encouraging this pastoral approach, Farel, Oecolampadius, and Zwingli challenged the Meaux group and other preachers in France to attack the errors of the traditional church. Farel had specifically urged Roussel to challenge the Faculty of Theology to debate just as he had disputed Catholic authorities at Basel. Following the model established by Luther, Farel had printed, posted, and then successfully defended thirteen theses in

62 In March 1525, the Faculty of Theology approved the reprinting of Menot’s Sermones quadragesimales; Farge, Registre 1, 90, sessions 84B and 85C. 63 On the possible models for the Meaux group’s Epistre et Evangiles and their use at Meaux, see further Screech, ed., Épistres & Évangiles, 12–16. 64 See chapter 5, 177 ff. 65 Primus tomus enarrationum in epistolas et evangelia, ut vulgo vocant, lectiones illas quae in missa festis diebus ex historiis evangelicis et scriptis apostolicis solent recitari. Authore Martino Luthero. Opus optimae frugis, latinis hactenus incognitum. [Strasbourg, Johann Herwagen, 1 February 1525]. Bucer’s dedicatory letter to the ‘evangelical brothers dispersed in France’ is dated 13 January 1525. Bucer’s Latin translation of Luther’s German introduction to this collection would then be translated twice into French, both of which were printed by the network’s printers Du Bois and Lempereur: Breve instruction pour deuement lire l’escripture [Alençon: Simon Du Bois, 1529?] and La maniere de lire l’evangile et quel profit on en doibt attendre [Antwerp: Martin Lempereur, 1529?] (Higman, Piety, L 115 and L 114). 66 Screech, ed., Épistres & Évangiles, 12–14, shows that the Meaux group had a radically different approach to preaching than their predecessors in France.

the network knits together, –

273

February 1524.67 As models, Roussel could well have used Farel’s theses or any of the others being sent to the Meaux group.68 Roussel replied to this appeal with an obviously painful outburst full of self-doubt, fear, anger, and hope. He, like Lefèvre, agreed with their mentors in Germany that they were fighting against the reign of the Antichrist.69 He wanted to advance “the Christian cause,” but he also saw clearly that, if he engaged in battle in such a way, he only stood to lose his life and not to win a public disputation, as Zwingli had done at Zurich and Farel at Basel. Nettled by Farel’s demands, Roussel complained: . . . as for what you exhort me to do in your letter, namely that I should assail those fat Parisian bellies by pinning up theses drafted in Christ’s print shop, theses that wholly contradict the Sorbonne, which hitherto has been considered the sole repository of true theologians, requires great strength of faith and gifts of the Spirit different from those which I have felt in myself so far. . . . In addition to this you want a single little man [unus homuncio = Roussel or Lefèvre, who was small in stature?] to ensure that books are printed in both French and Latin that will refute their errors, which until now everyone has accepted. It is as if you have forgotten about the Parlement of Paris’s decree that stipulates no one may

67 Gullielmus Farellus christianis lectoribus. Februar [1524] ([Basel: Andreas Cratander], February 1524). Oecolampadius translated Farel’s theses into German and these were printed in a further five editions. Gilmont, “Œuvre imprimé Farel,” nos. 1–1 through 1–6, 113–116; Herminjard 1, no. 91, 193–195 for Latin text. 68 Farel sent the Lutheran theses defended at Breslau by Johannes Hess to Lefèvre, who approved of them; see Herminjard 1, no. 103, 219–228, 225–226 plus the theses, 228–231; Brief Oekolampads 1, no. 203, 290 (excerpt). 69 For example, “Ceterum arma Christiane militie potentia per Deum, ad demoliendum quidquid adversus illum munitum fuerit, ad evertenda consilia et omnem altitudinem erigentem se adversus cognitionem Dei: quae si semel, per vestras orationes ad Deum, inheserint mihi, non est ut metuam hominum larvas, Antichristi regnum cum suis infulis ac scholis, quae, pro humanis traditionibus, quibus se aliis preferant, magno coram Deo merito, dense digladiantur, ac novas semper adinveniunt, novas sectas, novos cultus, de quibus ne tantillum meminit Scriptura . . .,” (emphasis added.) Roussel to Johannes Oecolampadius, 24 August 1524, Herminjard 1, no. 118, 274–278, 277; Brief Oekolampads 1, no. 213, 309–312; Schmidt, Gérard Roussel, no. 4, 180–184. The key terms used by network members in their denunciations of the church, its clergy, and its errors include: synagogue, the Antichrist, Satan, the Devil, Pharisees, scribes, hypocrites, doctors, superstition, and human traditions or inventions. Like the German reformers, Lambert, Farel, and Coct openly attacked the church with these terms in their publications. As revealed in their private correspondence, Lefèvre, Roussel, and other evangelicals in France shared similar views. For examples, see Herminjard 1, 148–151, 217, 232, 234–236, 217–28, 275–278, 281, 296, 311, 314, 376, 390, 408, 411–412, 499 n. 2. See also Nicolas Bourbon’s poem on the Roman Antichrist cited in note 1.

274

chapter seven – from meaux to madrid publish books on theology unless they have been previously approved by the Faculty of Theology. As a result, only Sorbonnic books are printed these days, nothing else. Go on now, who is able to do what you ask when the parlement is on the side of the theologians, sanctioning everything that they decree? To convince you that I am telling the truth, I will relate what happened here a few days ago. . . .70

Roussel goes on to tell of the arrest of several members of the network at Meaux. He was plainly consternated at being asked to pick a fight that he knew he could not win, and yet believed to be just. He would not, he could not, challenge the faculty, unless he was granted greater courage and wisdom.

The Invention of the French Evangelical Press in 1525 Although French evangelicals balked at challenging church authorities in public debates, they all agreed with their mentors in Germania that, as there, vernacular works were desperately needed to advance the cause in the realm. As is now well established in scholarship, only in 1525, just after the flood of Reformation pamphlets in Germany had reached its high-water mark, did evangelical books written in French appear in significant numbers, including the first translations of Luther’s and other reformers’ works into French.71 The focus of this study sharpens this 70 “. . . nam quod scripto adhortaris, ut ventres Parisinos adoriar, affixis e Christi officina positionibus, quibus nihil conveniat cum Sorbona, quae hactenus credita et unicum theologorum asylum, non parvum exigit fidei robur, ac alia spiritus manifestatione opus esset quam sit ea quam hucusque sensi in me. Hortaris, ut unus homuncio [Roussel or Lefèvre?] . . . adhuc autem det operam libros imprimi in gallica latinque lingua, quibus errores ipsorum convellantur qui hucusque pro receptissimis habiti sunt. Quasi tu ignores decretum Parisini Senatus quo cautum est ne quis invulgare libros theologie audeat, nisi antea approbatos a Facultate Theologie Parisinae; ut nihil hodie apud nos imprimatur non sorbonicum, neque imprimi queat. Age, jam qui fieri potest quod petis, cum Senatus a parte theologorum stet, ut quod hi decreverunt cunctis comprobet calculis? Et, ut quod dico verum putes, aperiam quod superioribus diebus apud nos acciderit.” 6 July 1524, Herminjard 1, no. 104, 231–240: 234; Schmidt, Gérard Roussel, no. 2, 171–178. See further Roussel’s second tortured refusal to jump into the arena with the doctors of theology addressed to Farel, Herminjard 1, no. 117, 270–273, and Oecolampadius, Herminjard 1, no. 118, 274–278; Brief Oekolampads 1, no. 213, 309–312; Schmidt, Gérard Roussel, no. 4, 180–184. 71 Francis Higman, Jean François Gilmont, Rodolphe Peter, and four generations of scholars stretching back through the past century have reconstructed this picture, which Higman has brought together in his bibliography Piety and the People. In a sermon from 1519, Josse Clichtove complained that Luther’s writings were appearing at Paris in French and German. For Clichtove’s report, see Henry Heller,

the network knits together, –

275

picture: the Navarrian Network was responsible for establishing the first successful French evangelical presses. Not only are its members’ inky fingerprints on scores of these evangelical books, it can also be shown that they were consciously and collectively working towards this goal since early in 1523.72 According to all available evidence, the Navarrian Network’s guiding hand was behind a broad, well-coordinated publishing campaign. Reconstructing their effort requires expanding the scope of analysis beyond French printed books, which have hitherto been the principal focus of research, to include Latin texts, manuscripts, and the network’s correspondence, which reveal much about the planning and execution of their program. The French market for evangelical literature in Latin was strong from the beginning of the Luther affair. In 1521, seven of Luther’s best selling Latin works were reprinted anonymously in Paris to supply local demand. After the Faculty of Theology condemned the Augustinian friar from Wittenberg and the parlement issued edicts regulating the market in religious books in 1521,73 Luther’s works ceased being reprinted in

“Reform and Reformers at Meaux, 1518–1525” (Ph.D. thesis, Cornell University, 1969), 2, citing Jules-Alexandre Clerval, De Iudoci Clichtovei Neoportuensis vita et operibus 1472–1543 (Paris, 1894), 30–31. Similarly, in 1521 the parlement complained about, “certains livres imprimez, . . . translatez de latin en languaige françoys . . . en grant scandalle et opprobre de la foy catholicque,” which apparently included a lost French translation of Melanchthon’s treatise against the Sorbonne’s Determinatio, the Adversus furiosum Parisiensium theologastrorum. See Imbart, Origines 3, 170, citing AN X1A 1523, fol. 310 [covering the year 1521], and 175. On 2 October 1523, the Faculty of Theology censured a French translation of Melanchthon’s “Passione Christi.” “Die Veneris IIa hujus mensis [October] et ani [1523] . . . multa fuere in consultationem posita, videlicet de libris Melenthonis de quadam Passione Christi sermone gallico edita, . . .” Clerval, Registre, 396; Imbart, Origines 3, 171. This may be a confused reference to one of the pieces in the L’Oraison de Jesuchrist, qui est le Pater noster [Paris: Simon Du Bois, 1525?] (Higman, Piety, F 25): “La Manière de mediter et penser à la passion de Jesus Christ.” This was in fact a French translation of Luther’s “Sermo de mediatione dominicae passionis (1521),” WA 61, 105, referring to WA 2, 134. Higman, Censorship, 83. 72 For two overviews of the evolution of heterodox literature in French by the master of this field, see Francis M. Higman, “Le levain de l’Évangile,” in Historie de l’édition française: le livre conquérant du moyen âge au milieu du XVIIe siècle (Paris: Promodis, 1982), 305–325; idem, “Le domaine français, 1520–1562,” in La Réforme et le livre: l’Europe de l’imprimé (1517–v.1570), ed. Jean-François Gilmont (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1990), 105–154. 73 On the advent and development of censorship see Higman, Censorship (1979); James K. Farge, Orthodoxy (1989); idem, “Early Censorship in Paris: A New Look at the Roles of the Parlement of Paris and King Francis I,” Renaissance and Reformation, new series, 13 (1989) 173–183; idem, Le parti conservateur au XVIe siècle: Université et Parlement de Paris à l’époque de la Renaissance et de la Réforme (Paris: Documents et inédits du Collège de France, 1992).

276

chapter seven – from meaux to madrid

Paris. Reformation tracts, however, continued to filter into France at some unknown rate. For instance, in 1523, works by Luther, Melanchthon, Tilemann (Simon) Hesshus, Erasmus, Lonicer, and others were on sale in Lyon.74 While Latin works remained available, different groups hatched plans to produce evangelical books in the vernacular. During 1525, these efforts converged and succeeded under the leadership of the Meaux group and sympathizers at court. The first recorded plan, however, did not originate with the French. In 1521, Bucer informed Beatus Rhenanus that the imperial knight Franz von Sickingen was keen to have Luther’s writings translated for the benefit of the French-speaking Charles V.75 Sickingen’s plan never materialized, but Bucer would shortly become involved in a similar translating program. As mentioned above, upon arrival at Wittenberg in 1523, Lambert, Coct, and Tauro made plans to translate Luther’s treatises for France. At first, however, they produced not French but Latin translations of Luther’s German works. This was an important intermediary step. Once Luther’s German works reached Europe’s intellectual lingua franca, they could be sold anywhere and more easily translated into any vernacular. To this end the Frenchmen encouraged their German friends, in what was by 1523 a well-established project, to render Luther’s important German works into Latin. Two of Melanchthon’s students, Johann and Jacob Rhellican, as well as Bucer specifically announced that their Latin translations of Luther’s German works were intended for the benefit of the French.76

74 As noted above, network members were avid readers of these works. Parmentier to Boniface Amerbach from Lyon, AK 2, no. 292, 440; see further no. 938, 440–441. Parmentier specifically noted were on sale: Andrea Fiocchi, Renestellae de magistratibus sacrerdotiisque Romanorum libellus (Basel: Curio, 1523); Philipp Melanchthon, Annotationes Ph. M. in Ev. Matthaei (Basel: Curio, May 1523); idem, In Ev. Joannis annotationes Ph. M (Basel: Curio, May 1523); Tilemann Hesshus, Apologia Simonis Hessi adversus dominu Roffensem [s.l.n.d.]; Ulrich von Hutten, Ulrichi ab Hutten cum Erasmu Rot. . . . Expostulatio [Strasbourg, Johann Schott?]; “Judicium Lutherii adversus Erasmi;” “Messias Judei venit;” Otto Brunfels, Problemata Othonis Brunnfelssi. I. De ratione Evangeliorum. II Quare in parabolis locutus sit Christus [s.l.d.: Johann Schott]; Johannes Lonicer, Catechesis de bona dei voluntate erga quemvis Christianum (s.l.n.d.); Sebastian Munster, “Dictionarium hebraycum” [(Froben, June 1523)]; Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples, Commentarii initiatorii in quatuor Evangelia (Basel: Cratander, March 1523). 75 5 April 1521, Bucer, Corr. 1, no. 31, 146–149; 147. 76 In his preface to Martin Luther, De humanis traditionibus vitandis. Item de iniquo mammone contiones (Basel: Thomas Wolff, 1525), Johann Rhellican specifies that he and his cousin Jacob undertook their translations at the request of François Lambert and another Frenchman in order to facilitate the passage of Luther’s German works

the network knits together, –

277

The French expatriates also tried to ensure that Luther’s Latin works remained available, for example by securing promises from Valentin Curio at Basel to reprint Luther’s treatise Adversus falso nominatum ordinem episcoporum.77 They also kept their brethren back in France informed about what was going to press in Germania. Thus, in October 1524, writing from the court at Lyon, Antoine Papillon asked Zwingli to dedicate his De vera et falsa religione to Louise of Savoy in order to win her support of the evangelical cause.78 The following March, having heard that Louise had had Meigret arrested, Zwingli in fact dedicated his lengthy compendium of doctrine to Francis I.79 Meanwhile, François Lambert was publishing at a feverish pace in Strasbourg from 1523 to 1526, including an attack of Franciscan rule (with a preface by Luther) as well as a dozen Latin commentaries on books from the Old Testament, two of which he dedicated to Francis I.80 The publication of these books, conjoined with those by Frenchmen abroad—Coct’s two pamphlets of letters by himself, Lambert, Luther, and Zwingli, as well as two Latin works by Farel81—constituted a concentrated missionary effort in Latin, organized by members of the network for the reformation of France. These treatises were a small but important contribution to the scores of Latin works from the Empire and Switzerland then circulating in the realm.

into French. See Herminjard 1, no. 67, 129–131. De iniquo mammone contiones was published in French translation soon thereafter at Paris in Gaspar van der Heyden and Martin Luther, D’ung seul mediateur entre Dieu et les hommes, Jesuchrist . . . . Ung sermon de mammona iniquitatis, c’est à dire des richesses d’iniquité [Paris: Simon Du Bois, 1526?]; Higman, Piety, H 12 and L121. For Bucer’s first translations of Luther into Latin, see appendix B III, no. 32 and the list of all Luther’s works translated from German into Latin in WA 61, 101–105. 77 Anémond de Coct and Michel Bentin made this request. See Herminjard 1, no. 120, 282–283; cf. appendix B III, no. 29. 78 “E re Christiana esse Dubleto [Antoine Du Blet] et mihi videtur, si Ludovicae, Andium, Cenomanorum Angolismorumque duci, Christianissimi regis matri, librum De vera et falsa religione, quem scripturum te recepisti, dicaveris,” Papillon to Zwingli, 7 October 1524, ZW 8, no. 346, 221–225, 255; Herminjard 1, no. 125, 294–298. 79 For De vera et falsa religione commentarius, see ZW 3, 590–912. See further, Bernard Roussel, “La dédicace à François Ier du De vera et falsa religione commentarius de H. Zwingli (mars 1525),” in Le livre et la Reforme, ed. Rodolphe Peter et Bernard Roussel (Bordeaux: Société des bibliophiles de Guyenne, 1987), 187–216, with an introduction and French translation of the dedicatory epistle. 80 See appendix B and Bodenmann, preface to “Bibliotheca Lambertiana,” as in note 12. 81 See Appendix B.

278

chapter seven – from meaux to madrid

Building on this base of Latin literature, Antoine Du Blet, Michel Bentin, Coct, Farel, and Lambert also pursued plans to produce French books at Basel and Strasbourg.82 The results, however, were disappointingly small. From 1523 to 1527, only four evangelical books in French are known to have been printed at Basel and another six at Strasbourg. At Basel, Andreas Cratander, who had strong ties to the Schabler-Resch publishing house, which had a commercial presence in France, and had previously reprinted many of Lefèvre’s Latin works, printed all four: Farel’s lost Epistre chrestienne as well as his very influential Le Pater Noster, et le Credo en françoys;83 a reprint of Lefèvre’s New Testament; and an anonymous pamphlet with a programmatic title and equally strident evangelical content: Exhortation sur ces sainctes parolles de nostre segneur [sic] Jesus “Retournes vous, et croyes à l’evangile” . . . et comment et la quelle fin on doit faire les bonnes œuvres . . . et de la subjection et obeissance qu’on doit rendre aux segneurs.84 Cratander also printed a

82 “[Michel Bentin] Cogitabat Tipographiam adoriri, me in vertendis gallice libris comite. Ego, ut verum fatear, animo ad eam rem ita sum propenso, ut quod maxime velim id etiam me posse confidam. Opto enim Galliam evangelicis voluminibus abundare, siquidem illa sunt quae de Iesu testimonium perhibent. Praeterea, quum Vaugris Lugdunum ibit, scribam ad fratres, ut pecuniae aliquid ad me mittant.” Anémond de Coct to Guillaume Farel from Basel, 2 September 1524, Herminjard 1, no. 120, 280–284, 282. By 18 November 1524, Coct had arranged with Conrad Resch to have Lefèvre’s edition of the New Testament reprinted “en plusieurs exemplaires,” which may have meant a large print run or one with different title pages. He also secured a promise to have Farel’s works printed as well as, it seems, other works in the care of Michel Bentin: “Je luy [Resch] ay parlé des livres françois que avez, et semble estre bon que, après ce que le Novel Testament sera imprimé, ilz soyent imprimez. Ès choses que j’ay aporté donera ordre nostre frère Michel Bentin.” Herminjard 1, no. 128, 306. 83 Farel’s exposition of the Lord’s Prayer and Creed, for which he borrowed from Luther, was taken up in three other publications in a total of 18 further editions, including Le livre de vraye et parfaicte oraison (Paris: Simon Du Bois for Christien Wechel, 1528). See Guillaume Farel, Le Pater Noster et le Credo en françoys, ed. Francis Higman (Geneva: Droz, 1982). 84 The Exhortation sur ces sainctes parolles [1525?], which calls for worship to be purified according to the gospel, emphasizes ‘Lutheran’ themes (e.g., the new versus the old law, the old law as a pedagogue, and the doctrine evangelique versus the doctrine des hommes), and criticizes the traditional church’s doctrines as marchandises. The author stresses obedience to secular authority and repeats many evangelical bywords such as that one should “vivre selon la parolle de nostre seigneur en vraye et vive foy” (B6r). Stylistically a bit loose, the work also shares much in common with the thought of Guillaume Farel and his fellow exiles circa 1524, including an emphasis on the “table de nostre seigneur” as “vraie union et charite avec tous les fideles et chrestiens en ce qu’on faict la remembrance et commemoration de celluy qui est chief de toute charite . . . annuncant la mort de ce tresbon Jesus . . . qui se sict a la dextre du pere est mort pour nous, affin que nous fussions ung corps par charite, mettans la vie l’ung pour l’aultre

the network knits together, –

279

fifth French religious book during these years: Claude Chansonnette’s translation of Erasmus’s Modus conifitendi (1524), which Chansonette dedicated to Marguerite. Members of the network had no hand in this work; indeed, most of them despised it and its author. Meanwhile, despite Lambert’s stated intent in 1523, no evangelical works in French were printed at Strasbourg until 1525. That year a translation of Luther’s De libertate christiana (1520), the Livre tresutile de la vraye et parfaite subjection des chrestiens, was published and evangelicals at Metz were reading it by July.85 The next year brought the publication of Wolfgang Schuch’s Epistre chrestienne envoyee a tresnoble Prince monseigneur le duc de Lorayne, with an introduction by one “Theodulus Philadelphus” (probably François Lambert) “to the Christian brothers in the Gaules (French-speaking lands),” in which he describes the author’s martyrdom in the duke’s territory.86 Four more tracts—Prophetie de Iesaie de l’enfant nouveau en Jesuchrist, a translation of Luther’s De Christo Iesu puero nato (1527),87 and three ‘Lutheran’ works by the French exile Guillaume Dumolin88—swelled

comme membres d’ung mesmes corps.” (B1r–B1v). My ‘vraye et vive’ thanks to William Kemp for supplying me with a photocopy of this rare text. 85 One of those with access to this work at Metz was the exiled wool-carder from Meaux, Jean Le Clerc. Guillaume Farel, Jean Le Clerc, other Meaux refugees, François Lambert, and Agrippa von Nettesheim were all in contact with a substantial circle of commoners and nobles in Metz, including Pierre Toussain and the Dex [d’Esch] family, whose Nicolas brought the Luther translation from Strasbourg. The evangelical cell at Metz was not, however, powerful enough to stand up to strong repression led by the Lorraine family. See Les chroniques de la ville de Metz (900–1552), ed. J.-F. Huguenin (Metz, 1838), 823b–829a; 827; Rodolphe Peter, “Les premiers ouvrages français imprimés à Strasbourg, 2e suite,” L’annuaire des amis du vieux-Strasbourg (1980), no. 0a, 36–38; A.-L. Herminjard, La Réforme a Metz: six lettres inédites de Farel et de Pierre Toussain (1525–1526) (Paris: Ch. Noblet, 1876); offprint from BSHPF 15 (1876), which contains an appeal to Robert II de la Marck, lord of Sedan, to intervene in favor of the evangelicals at Metz; and the focused article with broad implications by Bernard Roussel, “Les premières dissidences religieuses du XVIe siècle à Metz (Hiver 1523–Été 1525),” in Les réformes en Lorraine (1520–1620), ed. Louis Châtelier, Centre de Recherches en Histoire sociale et religieuse, no. 2 (Nancy: Presses Universitaires de Nancy, 1986), 11–45. 86 Rodolphe Peter, “Le martyr alsacien Wolfgang Schuch,” Revue d’Alsace (1987), 91–127, includes a critical edition of the tract. 87 Possibly translated by François Lambert from Johannes Lonicer’s Latin translation De Christo Iesu puero nato ex 9. Iesaiae capite vaticinium (1527), WA 19, no. 360, 128. See Higman, Piety, L 118. 88 Guillaume Dumolin’s treatises are heavily inspired by Luther, and, given their titles, oriented to the Francophone parts of the Empire. Nothing about them suggests a connection to the network. See appendix B I.

280

chapter seven – from meaux to madrid

the Strasbourg tally to six books by 1527. Thereafter, the network members’ project to produce vernacular works bore no more fruit in either Basel or Strasbourg. Only circa 1540 did a new wave of French exiles, including Calvin, induce printers in these cities to produce heterodox religious books in French again.89 Until 1525, evangelicals in France had even more difficulty publishing than their expatriate friends. Only four evangelical books in French are known to have been printed in France during 1524: Lefèvre’s translation of the Psalms, two reprints of his New Testament, and Aimé Meigret’s sermon from Grenoble. Throughout that year Lefèvre, Roussel and Nicolas Le Sueur lamented that they could not go to press with the manuscripts they had in hand because of heavy censorship.90 In order to have his revised Latin edition of the Psalms published, Lefèvre had to buy the good will of the Parlement of Paris by dedicating the work to its first president, Jean de Selve.91 Worse still, Lefèvre and his colleagues found that they could no longer rely on the services of their usual printer at Paris, Simon de Colines. In the estimation of Lefèvre and Colines’ stepson, Robert Estienne, aside from editions of the Bible, Colines was producing nothing but rubbish, exemplified by his printing of the Antilutherus (1524) by the Fabrists’ former colleague “Cloacarius,” Josse Clichtove.92 In the face of these constraints, network members in France asked their brethren in Basel to help them publish religious books. The leaders behind the network’s campaign within the kingdom were Gérard

89 Strasbourg’s presses again produced religious books in French after Calvin settled there in 1539. At Basel no more were printed until 1544 except for one Farel tract in 1532. See Higman, Piety, printer by city tables. For the transition of evangelical printing abroad to Geneva by way of Vingle at Neuchâtel, see idem, “Le levain de l’Évangile,” 305–325, 382–389. 90 Herminjard 1, nos. 98, 103, 104, and 117. 91 “. . . jam primarius praeses habebat ad manus, nomini suo dedicatum, quo favorem curiae emercaremur, ad quicquam, si opus esset, excudendum. Nam scis ordinationem Senatus, omnibus libris, tum excudendi, tum precio exponendis, praebentem impedimentum, nisi instituti quidam censores (et iidem, si non etiam indocti, certe male adfecti) adprobaverint.” Lefèvre to Farel, 6 July 1524, Herminjard 1, no. 103, 219–228; 223. 92 Lefèvre and Roussel promised to send to Farel a letter by Robert Estienne describing Colines’ latest publications as well as examples of them once published. Herminjard 1, nos. 103 and 104. Expressing the sentiments of the Meaux group, Jean Lange wrote to Farel from Meaux on 1 January 1524: “De cloacario non loquor (certè Clicthoveo dicere putabam); non tibi unquam persuadeas, quàm ille repuerascat vel vanos istos theologici ordinis accubitus anhelet, depereatque.” Herminjard 1, no. 83, 178–181, 180.

the network knits together, –

281

Roussel and Nicolas Le Sueur. They pursued two plans simultaneously. As an immediate expedient, they and some rich friends from Lyon sent manuscripts and subsidies for their publication to Basel. As noted above, this attempt produced small results.93 Their second, more daring plan was to establish a press at Meaux, as they had previously done to print Lefèvre’s Latin Commentary on the Gospels (1522). This time, however, they intended to publish vernacular works for the laity, which, like Lefèvre’s Bible translation, they would distribute for free. For this project, they asked Farel to spare no expense in obtaining typesets and matrices like those used by Froben at Basel.94 The following year, 1525, in answer to the network’s needs and plans, Simon de Colines (or rather, almost certainly his stepson, Robert Estienne, using his material) and two new printers, Simon Du Bois at Paris and Martin Lempereur (de Keyser) in Antwerp, began publishing a large stock of evangelical books. Except for Lefèvre’s Bible translations, all of these French imprints were anonymous. While Colines’ printing material ceased being used by 1526 (the year in which Estienne set up his own printing house), over the next ten years Du Bois and Lempereur would carry on the brunt of printing first editions of evangelical books in French. Many of these were reprinted by other printers, some of whom, such as Pierre de Vingle and later Éstienne Dolet at Lyon, were clearly evangelical as well.

93

Herminjard 1, no. 102, 218; no. 124, 292–3. “Quod ad imprimendos libros vulgari idiomate attinet, egi cum amicis, qui tuum consilium probant; sed commodior modus non est illis visus, ob decretum Senatus, quam si in nostra urbe Meldensi peculiaris esset impressor, qui nostris impensis formaret libros, gratis deinceps sed pauperibus per nos communicandos. Qua in re tuam operam requirimus, ut, si fieri potest, per te nobis matrices aeneae, aut quod magis optamus, styli ferrei, matricum quod vocant radices ac capita, nostris quidem sumptibus reddantur, quod cupiamus Frobenianum impresionem assequi aut propemodum imitari. Nihil addubito istic esse complures, qui istiusmodi stylos apparent, cum apud nos pauci sint, et adhuc non admodum industrii. Nec moror sumptus, modo hisce nobis uti liceat: in quam rem quid studi impenderis, fac resciam quamprimum. Nam ut hoc ad te scriberem primores urbis curarunt, qui tibi bene colunt ex animo.” Roussel to Farel, 6 July 1524, Herminjard 1, no. 104, 231–240, 237–238; Brief Oekolampads 1, no. 203, 290–291 (excerpt); Schmidt, Gérard Roussel, no. 2, 171–178. Roussel’s request is curious, reflecting either great ignorance about printing or forward-looking vision. Traditionally, all French vernacular works at that time were printed in gothic type. The switch to roman type for vernacular works began in France after 1530 (cf. German vernacular works remained in gothic type into the twentieth century). Thus, Coct and Bentin were seeking gothic character typesets from Lyon in late 1524 in order to print vernacular works, since they could not obtain them in Basel. Was Roussel planning on printing vernacular works in Froben’s clear roman type? 94

282

chapter seven – from meaux to madrid

The advent of these evangelical publishing houses can best be assessed by first considering the manuscripts that the network had in hand and were evidently intending to publish as these printers came on line. For the years 1523 through 1526, various sources mention some forty manuscript books authored by members of the network.95 Although no doubt partial, this list is extremely revealing about their intellectual and reforming interests. On it one finds nineteen manuscripts belonging to and probably written by Berquin. He had translated works by St. Jerome, Luther, Hutten, and Erasmus into French, written strident defenses of evangelical (Lutheran) doctrine, and composed caustic literary attacks on the champions of the traditional church. Turning to the French exiles, one finds references to five works by Farel, a French translation by Anémond de Coct of a letter by the duke of Würtemberg in which he authorizes evangelical preaching in his territories, and Lambert’s 116 theses for a disputation at Metz. Members of the Meaux group and Marguerite’s circle at court authored the remaining fourteen works in manuscript, including: a letter by Briçonnet “on the Ethiopian;” two illustrated manuscripts of Lefèvre’s New Testament translations; an unnamed theological opusculum by Martial Mazurier; a defense of Jacques Pauvan by Matthieu Saulnier; De vana rei Christianae (quam publicam vocant) administratione by Nicolas Le Sueur; a commentary on the Psalms by Michel d’Arande; a commentary on Romans by Gérard Roussel, along with his translation of the Pentateuch; a placard posted at Meaux “Against the Papal Jubilee Indulgence” of 1524; “Four poems on the death of Charlotte Valois” by Marguerite; as well as three translations of works by Luther, including, Marguerite’s verse interpretation of his Explanatio dominicae orationis (1520), Antoine Papillon’s rendering of De votis monasticis iudicium, and Antoine d’Oraison’s translation of Sermo Martini Lutheri de praeparatione ad moriendum e vernaculo in latinum versus. Several observations should be made about these texts. First, barring correction, only four of these forty manuscript works survive in exemplars today: a presentation manuscript of Lefèvre’s translation of the Gospel of Matthew (c. 1523); Oraison’s Luther translation; Marguerite’s poems on Charlotte’s death; and her verse translation of Luther’s exposition of the Lord’s Prayer. Second, only seven of the forty are known

95 See appendix B II, which has been culled in the main from letters in Herminjard volume 1 and the censorship records of the Faculty of Theology of Paris.

the network knits together, –

283

to have been printed during that era, and all of them went through the presses of the aforementioned evangelical printers. In May and June 1525, the Faculty of Theology censured manuscript copies of four translations of Erasmus by Berquin.96 Half a year later, during January 1526, the Faculty of Theology of Paris again condemned these works, but this time the copies in hand were printed books which had been seized from Berquin’s library. Three of these survive as editions that came off the presses of Simon Du Bois, evidently in the latter half of 1525. The fourth translation survives in an edition by Pierre de Vingle (Lyon, 1531), which was possibly a reprint from a lost Du Bois edition of 1525. Roussel’s translation of the Pentateuch, which he presented to Marguerite in 1526, may also have influenced Lefèvre’s translation of the Old Testament, whose first installment Martin Lempereur printed at Antwerp in 1528. Rounding out the list, Marguerite’s poems on the death of her niece Charlotte appeared at the head of her Dialogue en forme de vision nocturne (Alençon: Simon Du Bois, 1533). Third, the high non-publication rate of these manuscripts, which is particularly striking in the cases of the works of Farel, Coct, and Lambert, indicates how difficult it was for members of the network to publish even when they had access to amenable printers. Although Schabler and Cratander printed Farel’s Pater Noster and Epistre chrestienne in 1524, they refused to print his Antichristi because they deemed that the time was not suitable. A fitting occasion never seems to have presented itself.97 Fourth, a high proportion of these manuscript works were specifically dedicated to Marguerite, including Oraison’s and Papillon’s translations of Luther, Le Sueur’s work on Christian government, Roussel’s translation

96 One of the doctors had handed the manuscripts over to the faculty after one of Francis I’s officials had presented to them to him for a private review. Francis I was most likely seeking theological sanction for Berquin’s translations without going through the full Faculty of Theology at Paris, since he had most likely commanded them to be made in the first place. When Erasmus was in touch with Guillaume Budé and François de Tournon in 1522 about his possible move to France, Budé announced that Francis I had decided to have some of Erasmus’s works translated, see Allen 5, no. 1328, 153, ll. 43–45. 97 On Farel’s attempt to have his manuscript works printed, see Herminjard 1, no. 120, 280–284; 281. After a bitter quarrel with Farel in the spring of 1524, Erasmus saw to it that he was banned from Basel and printers were prevented from publishing his works. For their conflict, see Nathaniel Weiss, “Guillaume Farel, la dispute de Bâle, le conflit avec Erasme (1524), d’après quelques documents inédits,” BSHPF 69 (1920), 115–145.

284

chapter seven – from meaux to madrid

of the books of Moses, and Briçonnet’s letter, which he had sent to her and she had made into a small pamphlet for her mother. For that matter, all of the authors or translators mentioned were more or less closely tied to her through the network or her direct patronage. Fifth, and most importantly, the references to these manuscripts reveal that network members participated in a vibrant, creative intellectual circle. Printed books only exposed those aspects of their thought that network members dared to publish in the face of censorship, not all that they thought, believed, or taught privately. Le Sueur’s work on Christian government, De vana rei Christianae administratione libellum, is an instructive example. As early as May 1524, he sought to have Farel publish it at Basel, describing it as a work that shows “by the authority and example of Scripture that the world would be better governed by the law of Christ than ‘Gentile’ [Roman or customary] laws.”98 Though it remained in manuscript, it evidently circulated within the network since, in December 1525, Roussel advised Le Sueur to send copies to Paris to edify his brothers there. He promised to look into having it printed at Strasbourg should he remain in exile there much longer.99 If Le Sueur’s work was published, no trace of it has surfaced. The fact that so many of these manuscripts did not make it to print even after the network had secured the services of willing printers in 1525 suggests further that informal editorial boards, made up of printers, colleagues, and patrons within the network, determined what would be printed—as in the case of Farel’s Antichristi. Certainly one should not assume that everyone in the network was consulted or that all members agreed with every book published by their confreres. Network members were, nevertheless, collectively responsible for the total production in a practical way. This is, for example, precisely why Lefèvre disapproved of a caustic response to the Faculty of Theology’s

98

“Habemus paratum de vana rei christianae (quam publicam vocant) administratione libelum, quo molimur, Scripturae et auctoritate et exemplo, multo faelicius Christi quam Gentilium legibus eam gubernari posse, quinimo, eas plurimum obesse unitati quam falso sibi promittunt,” Nicolas Le Sueur to Guillaume Farel, 15 May 1524, Herminjard 1, no. 102, 218; Gérard Roussel, no. 1, 169–171. 99 “Bene feceris si compendium tuum in rem Christianam, ad illos [fratres meos] miseris, mea causa, pro illorum instructione. Si nobis hic manendum diutius fuerit, hoc vellem abs te et amicis impetratum, ut hic officinam erigeremus, e qua prodirent libri magna ex parte in vestram linguam transfusi, ad populi institutionem, cujus generis sunt quos tibi suggessit Dominus.” [Gérard Roussel] to [Nicolas Le Sueur], from Strasbourg to Meaux, [December 1525], Herminjard 1, no. 168, 408–415; Quadroni, Farel corr., no. 45.

the network knits together, –

285

Determinatio against the Meaux group, which Farel had most likely written. Its gratuitous attacks on individuals, Lefèvre told Farel, would harden the hearts of their adversaries, who would hold himself and his colleagues accountable.100 After their failed attempts in 1524 to set up presses at Basel and Meaux, the Navarrian Network in effect ‘invented’ the presses of the clandestine-Colines [Estienne], Du Bois, and Lempereur to serve as their publishing outlet. While no source states this explicitly (i.e., no letter exists in which a member of the Meaux group heralds Du Bois’s presses as their new officina), the weight of supporting evidence is overwhelming. Scholars have long remarked that the catalogues of these three printers are interrelated and rich in evangelical works authored, edited, or translated by members of the network. To summarize their findings and those presented here: these printers shared the same origins and worked to the same purpose. Du Bois and Lempereur both received their training as printers in Paris; both started printing in 1525; both printed many first editions of works by members of the network; both reprinted works first published by the other; and their anonymous works ended up with great frequency side by side in the same contemporary bindings, bookstores, and private libraries, notably Anne Boleyn’s in England.101 The conjunction of their books is so strongly marked that these two printers must have shared the same editorial and distribution networks.

100 “Accepi etiam illam arcem subsannationem, quae, si in manus multorum venerit, vehementer motura et bilem, et nobis etiam inconsciis conflatura invidiam, quasi quippiam tale promoverimus. Utinam scriptor comoediae pepercisset aliquorum nominibus, quorum mallem resipiscentiam quam nomini eorum inuri notam! Sed id Dei munus est.” Lefèvre to Farel, 6 July 1524, Herminjard 1, no. 103, 219–228, 223. Cf. Oecolampadius’s strong letter of recommendation on behalf of Farel to Luther, despite what some considered his overly tempestuous attack on their enemies. See Brief Oekolampads 1, no. 196, 280–282; WA Br 3, no. 745, 293–295; Herminjard 1, no. 101, 215–216. 101 On Anne Boleyn’s collection of evangelical imprints, which contained dozens of anonymous works printed by Du Bois and Lempereur, see James Carley, “‘Her moost lovyng and fryndely brother sendeth gretyng’ Anne Boleyn’s Manuscripts and Their Sources,” in Illuminating the Book: Makers and Interpreters. Essays in Honour of Janet Backhouse, ed. Michelle P. Brown and Scot McKendrick (London & Toronto: the British Library and University of Toronto Press, 1998), 261–280, and his “French Evangelical Books at the Court of Henry VIII,” in Le livre évangélique en français avant Calvin: Études originales, publications d’inédits, catalogues d’éditions anciennes, ed. Jean-François Gilmont and William Kemp, Nugae humanisticae sub signo Erasmi 4 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2004), 130–146.

286

chapter seven – from meaux to madrid

Over the period 1525–1526, the presses of Colines, Du Bois, and Lempereur produced a total of twenty-one of the twenty-nine known evangelical works in French.102 All of them except Lefèvre’s translations were anonymous. One finds among them:103 • seven of the eight editions containing works in whole or part translated from works by Luther • two translations of works by the “Lutherans” Melanchthon and Gaspar (Sebald) van der Heyden • four of the six editions of Lefèvre’s translations of the New Testament and Psalms • the Meaux group’s Epistres et Evangiles, a translation of Pierre d’Ailly’s commentary on the Penitential Psalms, which was possibly done by Pierre Caroli, and a lost translation of St. John Chrysostom’s Homilies printed at Briçonnet’s command • all four translations of works by Erasmus from these years, including the Exhortation au peuple [Antwerp: Martin Lempereur, 1525?], which is an anonymous translation of the Paraclesis, and the three translations by Berquin published by Du Bois • the Oraison de Jesuchrist, which is an augmented reprint of Farel’s Pater Noster (Basel 1524), and an Epistre chrestienne tresutile à ceulx qui commencent lire la saincte parolle de Dieu, possibly authored by Farel as well • finally, two anonymous works with strong evangelical content: the Petit livre de la loi et de l’evangile, de l’effect et force des deux, et de la difference diceulx. Responses à quinze obiections de predestination

102 The eight evangelical works by other printers all had direct connections to the network. Four were done at Basel and Strasbourg have already been mentioned above. Of the remaining four, two were works dedicated to Marguerite by Agrippa von Nettesheim (Lyon: Nourry and Carcan, 1525) and Jean de Vauzelles (Lyon: Gilbert de Villiers, 1526), the third was a reprint of Lefèvre’s New Testament (Lyon: Nourry, 1525), and the fourth was a reprint (Paris: Jerome Denis, 1525) of Pierre d’Ailly’s commentary on the seven penitential Psalms first printed by Du Bois in 1525. Vauzelles dedicated at least three other works to Marguerite over his career; see appendix B I for Lucian of Samostata, Le martire de verite, dialogue de Lucian mis en lumiere Francoise (c. 1531); Vauzelles, Theatre de Francoise desolatione sur le trespas de la tresaugust Loise: louable admiration de Savoie et de feminine gloire: represeante d’une vrai zele (c. 1531); and Pierre Arétin, Trois livres de l’humanite de Jesuchrist: divinement descripte, et au vif representée par Pierre Aretin Italien, trans. Jean de Vauzelles (1540). 103 For the works discussed below, see Appendix B I, which is ordered by year and then author and title.

the network knits together, –

287

(1525?)104 and the La traicté du souverain bien (Du Bois, 1526?), which is dedicated to Marguerite “d’Alençon,” and thus was probably printed before her marriage in January 1527 Except for the revised edition of Farel’s Oraison and reprints of Lefèvre’s translations of Scripture, all these titles were first editions. Like the network’s reading list of German reformers from 1524 and its manuscripts, this group of printed works contains many translations of Luther’s treatises, several works edited or translated by network members, anonymous works whose content is clearly evangelical, and a treatise dedicated to Marguerite.105 These similarities demonstrate the direct filiation between what the Navarrian Network read, wrote, translated, and, as is claimed here, were responsible for publishing via these three printers. Notably, the evangelical tracts printed by Colines-Estienne, Du Bois, and Lempereur contain many short expositions of evangelical doctrine whose content is similar to the beliefs expressed by network members in other sources. Several are expositions of one or more of the three symbols of the faith (the Ten Commandments, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Apostles’ Creed), which answered the need for lay instruction. Marguerite had given voice to her personal desire for such instruction in June 1524, when she asked Briçonnet for a meditation on the Lord’s Prayer.106 Around that time she thought enough of Luther’s explana-

104

Andrew Pettegree discovered a copy of this lost work at the BM Lyon in March 2000 and kindly signaled its existence to me. The Petit livre is from the same press as a translation of Luther’s Magnificat, attributed by Higman Piety L 88 to [Antwerp: Martin Lempereur?, 1525]. William Kemp has established, based on an examination of typographical material, that this work is from the Colines [Robert Estienne] press; private communication, 25 April 2003. The first of the two treatises in it is a summary of evangelical doctrine. It teaches that: 1) the differences between the law and the gospel have existed in all ages “Et tousjours a este le temps de la loy et de l’evangile” (a2r); 2) the law is a “pedagogue” (a7r and b4r) that damns consciences and allows grace to be known (a8r); 3) consequently, those who trust in works are hypocrites (b2r); and 4) that “les justices des sainctz sont ung drapeau souille de sang menstrueux.” The second treatise on predestination seeks to explain the “haultes et difficiles” objections to predestination to “Chrestiens et Chrestiennes” (reminiscent of Lefèvre’s addresses to the reader) willing to read it “attentivement et humblement.” Neither treatise has given up the secrets of its origin and both deserve fuller study. 105 See note 102 for two additional works dedicated to Marguerite among the other eight evangelical works in France printed from 1525–1526. 106 “Et si l’Esprit, congnoissant en vous, a parfaict l’oraison donnée du Pere par le Filz, sans oublier l’espitre de sainct Denis, dont Madame a desir, je vous en demanderay voluntiers, sans crainte de reffus, le double. . . .” Marguerite to Briçonnet [Tours

288

chapter seven – from meaux to madrid

tions of it to put it into verse, but she never published it. Similarly, in February 1525, responding to criticism of his pastorate, Gérard Roussel explained that he had urged the people to say the Pater noster instead of the Ave Maria, since he believed it was as efficacious as the prayer to Mary.107 Marguerite and Roussel’s interest in the Lord’s Prayer as a locus of instruction was mirrored in the production of the network’s presses. It is important to note, however, that much was missing among the network’s vernacular works: Berquin’s forthright defenses of Luther, his and Farel’s attacks on the Catholic doctors, as well as translations of the controversialist works by Luther and other reformers. The network’s printing program was broadly unified, stealthy, and restrained. It was designed to disseminate evangelical doctrine to the laity while avoiding controversy and easy censure. These conclusions are amply demonstrated by two important firsts in this corpus. The first datable works in the oeuvre of both Du Bois and Lempereur are representative of the network’s intentions, and are highly significant treatises in their own rights. Du Bois’ first dated work, the Brief recueil de la substance et principal fondement de la doctrine evangelique, with a preface to the faithful reader signed September 1525, is a hitherto unknown, augmented translation of Philipp Melanchthon’s Epitome renovatae ecclesiasticae doctrinae ad illustrissimum principem Hessorum.108 Written at the request of the landgrave of Hesse, Melanchthon’s treatise presented a concise apology for the evangelical movement and a clear summary of its principal doctrines. In the preface,

or Amboise, before 4 June 1524]. Briçonnet, Correspondance 2, no. 103, 162 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 172). 107 Charles Schmidt, “Gérard Roussel, inculpé d’hérésie à Meaux, 1525,” BSHPF 10 (1861), 221. 108 The Brief recueil is therefore the first extant translation of a work by Melanchthon into French. The dependence of the Brief recueil on Melanchthon’s Epitome is clear from the beginning of both texts. The Brief recueil begins (A4r) [addition italicized]: “Si maintenant on voit presques par tout l’evangile du filz de Dieu estre persecutee en laquelle toutesfois consiste et est enseignee la vraie et seule religion, c’est à dire purite de foi, et le vrai service de Dieu: nul ne s’en doibt donner de merveille. Car d’elle on en a tousjours juge en diverses manieres comme tesmoigne S. Paul quant en la i. aux. Corint. i. [1 Cor. 1:23], il dit que l’evangile est aux Juifz esclandre [sic], et aux grecz follie.” Melanchthon wrote: “De religione seu evangelio semper varie iudicatum est, ut testatur Paulus, cum queritur Judaeis esse scandalo, Graecis videri stultitiam.” Melanchthons Werke in Auswahl, vol. 1, ed. Robert Stupperich (Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann Verlag, 1951), 179, ll. 1–5 [Corpus Reformatorum 1, 703].

the network knits together, –

289

speaking for his fellow ministers, the anonymous translator repackages Melanchthon’s work to address the situation in France:109 We have no doubt, good Christians, that you thirst and hunger deeply in your hearts for the pure and unadulterated word of God, and even more, crave that it be freely and publicly preached . . . . Certainly, we, who have been commissioned to minister and disseminate His word to the faithful, yearn for nothing else than to be able to proclaim it to you purely and clearly . . . . But since we are prevented from preaching by those who fear that if the truth were known it would gut their bellies and rob them of their honor, so that we do not leave you wholly forsaken, we can still nourish your faith through the written word. Hereafter, we will provide, God willing, or rather He will provide through us in greater abundance. For now, we offer to you this little tract, culled from the Latin writings of a certain faithful man. Though small in size, it contains rich treasures, I believe, if you read it properly.110

Reminiscent of Roussel’s stab at the fat bellies of the Parisian doctors, the translator has described exactly the situation faced by the evangelical preachers in Meaux and throughout France in September 1525. Speaking on their behalf, the translator addresses their collective flock. Having been prevented from preaching, he announces that these pastors will embark on a printing campaign through which they will continue their ministry of the Word. The preface is, in effect, the official announcement of the launching of the Navarrian Network’s publishing campaign. Martin Lempereur’s first French work, dated June 1525, is a second edition of Lefèvre’s French translation of the Psalms. For this edition Lefèvre wrote a new final exhortation to the reader, entrusting it to

109 The Brief recueil thus made it to print only one year after Philipp Melanchthon completed and sent his Epitome to the printers at Wittenberg in September 1524. More precisely, it can be shown that the Brief recueil was translated from an edition done in early 1525 by Herwagen at Strasbourg, thus further reinforcing the publishing triangle of Strasbourg—Basel, Paris, and Antwerp. 110 “Nous ne doubtons point peuple Chrestien que n’ayez en vostre cueur fort grand soif et faim de la pure et immaculee parolle de dieu et moult desirez que elle vous soit liberalement et publiquement preschee . . . . Et certes nous aussi ausquelz est commise l’administration et dispensation d’icelle parolle ne desirons riens tant que la vous povoir annocer pure et nette. . . . Mais pourtant que sommes empeschez de ce faire par ceulz aux ventres et à la gloire desquelz nuyroit verite manifestee, affin que ne vous delaissons du tout, reste au moins que par escriptz ne cessons de aider vostre foi. Ce que nous ferons au plaisir de Dieu, voire il fera en nous ci apres plus amplement. Pour maintenant nous vous offrons ce present bref livret, extraict des escriptz latins de quelque fidele, petit en quantite, mais moult grand en valeur, comme il me semble si on le lit bien.” Brief recueil, A2r–A2v.

290

chapter seven – from meaux to madrid

Lempereur in distant Antwerp rather than to the printer of the first Paris edition, Simon Colines.111 Lefèvre had headed each of the Psalms with a thesis-driven exegetical summary (argument). Collectively, these summaries add a strong polemical dimension to this otherwise unadorned translation. Addressing the reader in the new exhortation, Lefèvre responds to the charges of inventing a new faith and misleading the laity leveled against him and his colleagues during the past year. He also defends having, at times, diverged substantially from the Latin Vulgate in his French translation. For instance, he explains that his substitution of “praise God in his holy place” for “praise God in his saints” in Psalm 133:2 more accurately reflects the original Hebrew.112 His new exhortation, like the individual arguments on the Psalms, indirectly attacks the church. In several of his arguments, he depicts the church as being in a ‘middle age’ and without sound doctrine ([dans] ung temps moyen l’eglise estant sans bonne doctrine), and undermines its cult of the saints as well as other traditions.113

111

Colines would in fact then reprint Lempereur’s second edition in 1526, not his own first edition. See Rice, Prefatory Epistles, no. 142, 487. Cf. Higman, Piety, B 74. Lefèvre’s choice verifies that the Meaux group had changed allegiance from their habitual printer to committed evangelical ones. Similarly, Lefèvre would have Lempereur print every future installment or revised edition of his Bible translation. 112 Rice, Prefatory Epistles, no. 142, 489–492, 491. 113 Psalm 51, “Priere pour appaiser lire de Dieu des tribulations venues pour ung temps moyen de l’eglise estant sans bonne doctrine: car apres le temps propice sera venu pour renouveller la doctrine dicelle et le dernier temps de grace.” Many of Lefèvre’s arguments on the Psalms are, like this one, assertions about the dilapidated state of the church and its false traditions. Several deserve to be quoted since the work remains unedited. I have consulted the Colines (1524) first edition [Paris SHP A 1185; Higman, Piety, B 71] and cited Psalm numbers to facilitate comparison with other editions: Psalm 29: “Priere en esperit du peuple fidele de la primitive eglise: et de son esperance en Jesuchrist.” Psalm 38: “Que pour [par] persecutions, la doctrine de Dieu ne doibt estre teue ne celee. Et que ce n’est riens de ceste presente vie: mais celle à advenir est tout.” Psalm 70: “Aultre oraison en ce mesme esperit [de Jesuchrist contre les adversaires dicelui] de ses faictz merveilleux. Du dernier temps de son eglise. Des reproches par ses ennemis. Et que sa puissance pour annoncer l’evangile ne cessera jusques à la fin du monde.” Psalm 91: “De la louenge du matin de la foy: c’est de la primitive eglise. Et de la nuict suivante. Apres laquelle nuict et gloire terrienne des pecheurs: doibt le iuste Jesuchrist et son peuple estre florissant et exalte au dernier aage et vieillesse de l’eglise.” Psalm 93: Que Dieu fera vengeance sur ceulx qui sent au siege d’iniquite qui par leurs traditions baillent pesans fardeux pour commandemens, resemblans à ceulx qui firent mourir Jesuchrist et condampnerent le sang innocent.”

the network knits together, –

291

More than indicating latent implications when teaching the Psalms, the Meaux group drew clear conclusions from such passages and pointedly, if not savagely, criticized the established practices of the church. Gérard Roussel explained to Farel that he used the Psalms as a set of common places to undeceive his listeners at Meaux about the false traditions (humana prescripta) of the church.114 Similarly, a hostile witness reported that in his sermon on the feast day of the Assumption of the Virgin in 1524, Roussel had explicitly taught Lefèvre’s substitution of “praise God in his holy place” for “in his saints,” arguing that “Anyone who wants to praise the saints acts like a clanging cymbal [cf. 1 Cor. 13:1].”115 Evidently, Roussel had seized on one of the high days of Marian piety to warn his flock that the cult of the saints obscured true worship of God. In his 1525 exhortation, Lefèvre responded to conservatives’ attempt to silence such teaching by admonishing the laity to close their ears to “those who forbid, damn, and turn them away” from having the Word of God and to pray for them.116 The translator of the Brief recueil closed his introduction with exactly the same instruction.117 These works from the presses of Du Bois, Lempereur, and the clandestine Colines formed the publishing arm of the network’s missionary campaign. Originally intended as a supplemental aid to their preaching, network members increasingly turned to printing as the means to nurture their brethren as the ministers in their fellowship were progressively stifled and silenced from 1524 through 1525. The next step in this analysis of the network’s program would be to assess the doctrines and instructions for life and worship across the

Psalm 136: “Autlre l’ouenge semblable en rememorant la providence de Dieu et ses anciennes merveilles. Deffense de adorer les images et creatures: mais en tous estatz, adorer, beneir et louer Dieu seulement.” 114 “. . . nec pretermitto Psalterium literatis qui apud nos sunt, interpretari, excussis pro occasione per me locis qui ad sinceram fiduciam faciant, quique humana prescripta convellant.” Roussel to Farel, 6 July 1524, Herminjard 1, no. 104, 231–240, 237–238; Schmidt, Gérard Roussel, no. 2, 171–178. 115 See note 36. 116 “. . . les contradisans, maldisans et desgoutans les simples de la parolle de dieu . . .” Rice, Prefatory Epistles, no. 142, 492. 117 “Et les seducteurs diceulx [the heart of the king, i.e., Francis I], lesquelz par cueur deprave repugnent à verite sans point de doubte Dieu les humiliera, voire mesme en ce monde ci. Mais quelz qu’ilz soient, endurez les et portez en patience, priant Dieu pour eulx et pour tous, ne rendant mal pour mal: mais delaissant toute vengeance à celui qui juge justement. Et se [si] ainsi vous le faictes, vous saulveres voz ames, renderes la doctrine de Christ louable par tout, et ser[a] incontinent la bataille et la victoire votre.” Brief recueil, A3r.

292

chapter seven – from meaux to madrid

whole corpus of their sermons and treatises. Another study will have to be devoted to this fascinating project.118 Even in this brief survey, it is apparent that certain major doctrines and themes—justification by faith through grace, Christ as sole mediator, the true church as the body of Christ united by faith in him, as well as critiques of the visible church, its cult of the saints, and its other human traditions—are consistently articulated in the evangelical works discussed above. These emphases accord with the views Lefèvre had expressed in his predating Latin commentaries on the Bible, and form with them a united theological position and reforming program. This basic agreement further reflects that these evangelical books were the product of an integrated group, not of disparate individual authors or printers. Having read deeply in the thought of Erasmus, Luther, and other reformers, members of the Navarrian Network selected works from these authors for translation or composed treatises inspired by them in order to instruct the laity. The fate of their manuscripts, notably those of Berquin, demonstrates that they published fewer and less strident treatises than they wished. Notably, network members produced the majority of all evangelical books printed in French during these years. They managed to establish evangelical presses just as their enemies in the Faculty of Theology and parlement succeeded in silencing evangelical preachers.119 These findings 118 Despite being reported in disparate and sometimes biased sources, there is sufficient material to reconstruct the main lines of what ministers in the network preached: 1) The Sorbonne’s Determinatio against the Meaux group and their other decisions against Pauvan, Saulnier, Caroli, Mazurier, Meigret, etc. . . . (d’Argentré, Collectio judiciorum, vols. 1 and 2, Clerval, Registres, and Farge, Registres); 2) “[20] Propositions Martiali Mazurier imputatae a Franciscanis [of Meaux]” as well as accounts of Briçonnet’s preaching in Toussaints Du Plessis, Meaux 1, 278–279, no. DLXIII (a reprint of Boulay, Historia Universitatis Paris 6, 173) and passim, cf. Veissière’s many studies; 3) the Meaux group’s Epistres et Evangiles; 4) Meigret’s published sermons from Lyon and Grenoble and trial record (see appendix B I, under the year 1524); 5) letters by Lefèvre, Roussel, Sébiville, Le Sueur, and other network members, in which they describe the style and content of their evangelical sermons (Herminjard 1, passim); 6) Farel’s(?) response to the Sorbonne’s Determinatio (appendix B III, no. 21); 7) Reports in chronicles and trial records. 119 The Faculty of Theology also had its own ongoing anti-heresy publishing campaign. First begun in 1523 (see chapter 6), it might be further reconstructed from James Farge’s studies of the doctors of theology in Paris, and especially his editions of their registers of conclusions. This campaign was the complementary arm of censorship and inquisition, but has received less systematic attention. For a solid start in this direction which concentrates on the texts the Parisian doctors themselves authored but not all the ones they approved, see Francis M. Higman, “Premières réponses catholiques aux écrits de la Réforme en France, 1525–c. 1540,” in Le livre dans l’Europe de la Renaissance:

the network knits together, –

293

justify us in positing as a working hypothesis that all the evangelical books produced by authors, printers, and patrons with ties to the network constituted its collective, public voice.

Leadership and Strategy—Doctrine and Purpose The network developed under the shadow of persecution, which darkened its members’ every decision and step. Especially in such circumstances, a dispersed, dissident group cannot develop or continue to function without, to borrow some apt military terminology, effective ‘command and control.’ Many scholars have asserted that French evangelicals lacked strong leaders and doctrinal unity.120 Whatever the causal connection posited between these desiderata, they are adduced as the main reasons why the early evangelical movement was not much more than the passing fad of a few remarkable individuals with vaguely similar religious sentiments. Speaking particularly of their books, but reflecting his assessment of evangelicals’ activity in general, one scholar has gone so far as to assert that:

Actes du XXVIIIe colloque international d’études humanistes de Tours, ed. P. Aquilon and H.-J. Martin (Paris: Promodis, 1988), 361–377. 120 For the scholarly consensus on the ‘magnificent anarchy’ of the early Reformation, see the introduction. David Nicholls, a leading proponent of this view, writes: “Coherence and order [among French evangelicals] developed more slowly: heresy was still individual and individualist, defined by what it was against rather than by positive doctrinal content. People did not suddenly convert to a form of coherent Protestantism.” See his article “France” in The Early Reformation in Europe, ed. Andrew Pettegree (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 126 (emphasis added). In formal terms, there was no ‘coherent form of Protestantism’ anywhere in Europe prior to 1529/1530 if one requires the existence of authorized catechisms or confessional statements to see such an identity, for it was only by that point, largely under pressure from the emperor, that the German ‘Protestants’ were forced to define the basic contours of their beliefs. If not, then French evangelicals exhibit nigh as much coherence as the German evangelicals with whom they were in contact and agreed about what the gospel fundamentally taught. As for their individualist doctrines being “defined by what [they were] against” (apparently even having a common enemy does not foster unity, according to Nicholls), see below for an explanation based on the Meigret case of how such distortions arise in documents produced by those persecuting the ‘heretics:’ conservatives systematically ignored the positive content and structure of the evangelical preachers’ message.

294

chapter seven – from meaux to madrid There was never any concerted propaganda campaign by evangelicals either on a local or national level. Individual works were written or translated in a random fashion.121

Disregarding the loaded word ‘propaganda’ and the implicit assumption that evangelicals intended and failed to achieve a separate church, such allegations of the group’s deficiencies in leadership still need to be addressed. These interpretations do not account for the fact that persecution forced evangelicals to curb how they articulated and acted upon their beliefs. When one inspects the hard evidence available, French evangelicals’ alleged divisive diversity of doctrine turns out to be an auditory distortion: they taught the same basic evangelical lessons and held similar views about the ‘false’ beliefs and practices of the church, but differed in how loudly and stridently they voiced their views. They constantly faced the question of how forcefully they could proclaim their message without being condemned as heretics. The level of risk changed with the circumstances. Some members, moreover, were willing to brave more danger than others. Less explicable is how scholars have been able to maintain that evangelicals lacked leadership, when the network’s enemies, the French

121 David Nicholls, “Heresy and Protestantism, 1520–1542: Questions of Perception and Communication,” French History 10 (1996), 182–205, 199, alleges that “[t]he nature and content of books available, Protestant or Catholic, was uncontrolled and arbitrary” without citing or comparing any primary sources. Likewise, when dealing with evangelical preaching, while recognizing that “the precise content of preaching is difficult to determine” (189, again 192–193)—which apparently excuses him from looking at the sources available—he confidently asserts that “[by 1524] the doctrinal diversity within the ‘Meaux group’ had passed the point of no return” (189); that they preached a “vast range of heretical or evangelical propositions” (193); and that “the very inconsistency of evangelical preaching gave their hearers the opportunity to pick and choose ideas” (195). Nicholls relies on Veissière’s assessment of the various condemnations leveled against individuals from the Meaux group, which led him to conclude that the Meaux group was doctrinally varied; see Veissière, Guillaume Briçonnet, 304. Ever seeking a measured analysis founded in the sources, Guy Bedouelle concludes: “Nous avons voulu suggérer combien il fallait apporter de nuances dans les jugements formulés sur ces hommes de Meaux. Il est vain de vouloir les cataloguer, de les rejeter en bloc d’un côté ou de l’autre. Chacun d’entre eux a eu ses réactions propres, ses affinités, ses courages, et ses faiblesses. Et une action où tel a pu mettre son courage, apparaît pour tel autre comme une faiblesse. Mais chacun a apporté une coloration particulière à une inspiration commune;” Bedouelle, Lefèvre, 99. His assessment has merit in affirming that members of the Meaux group had different temperaments, but the emphasis should be put on their unifying “inspiration commune,” which, once recognized, must be described concretely.

the network knits together, –

295

public, foreign observers, and its members themselves all plainly proclaimed that it had well-known champions. Ascertaining how closely these proclamations matched the real leaders’ identities and how well in fact these leaders managed to guide the network is a delicate task. But it should be remembered that both the image and the reality of the network’s leadership were important factors in its development. Heresy accusations and investigations certainly hampered its leaders’ efforts, but notoriety also allowed these individuals to serve as models whom sympathizers could emulate and standard-bearers to whom they might rally. To tackle the complex problem of assessing the network leaders’ doctrine, strategy, and purpose, consider once more the heart of the network’s program: preaching. In his letter to Farel of 13 January 1524, Lefèvre described two types of sermons that ministers were delivering at Meaux. He claimed that most preachers concentrated exclusively on explaining the doctrinal core of the lectionary readings and refrained from criticizing the ‘exaggerated’ cult of the saints and human traditions. Others, like Caroli and Mazurier, who were after all doctors of theology with the authority to do so, built attacks on such false practices into their expositions of the faith. According to Lefèvre, the two preaching styles shared the same doctrinal core but differed in their rhetorical strategies and emphases. The first instructed listeners exclusively in those truths that should be embraced. The second went an extra step and denounced unbiblical practices that obstruct the pure light of the gospel. Lefèvre’s distinction between the two preaching modes, which similarly characterizes the division between the catechetical books network members did publish and the polemical ones some would have liked to publish but did not, was strategic in several senses. Members of the network recognized that most of the clergy and people were wedded to established doctrine and practice. This situation raised the problem of persuasion. How could they best lead the misguided to the truth? Should they present evangelical doctrine in its unadulterated purity or couple this message with an attack on the false human traditions that prevented the people from understanding it? If they did attack the established church, how fiercely could or should they denounce false practices? This problem of persuasion was linked to another practical issue. With enemies seeking to stop them with sword and fire, how far could they pursue either pedagogical style and still hope to survive? Was it acceptable to “cover the fire,” as Briçonnet had once put it, that is, to dissimulate their message?

296

chapter seven – from meaux to madrid

The first strategy or pedagogical style, embodied in the Meaux group’s Epistres et Evangiles, was less immediately provocative. It avoided controversy. There was no place in it for public endorsements of the ‘Lutheran heretics’ to whom the evangelicals owed much. Such restraint favored the viability of their program. Preachers were less likely to alienate the crown by causing religious strife. As it turned out, the preachers in the network did not all hew to that line, nor did the sermons of those who did mollify conservatives, who recognized that the evangelicals’ ideas would undermine established practice even if the preachers did not explain the full implications of their doctrines. It is difficult to tell how consistently evangelical ministers conformed to the first homiletic style, which Lefèvre obviously preferred. Nicolas Le Sueur praised Gérard Roussel’s preaching precisely because he offered the full truth without exposing himself to easy attack. Roussel nevertheless came under investigation. Le Sueur underestimated the sensitivity of the doctors’ ear for heresy.122 Those with more caustic tongues made easier targets and became more visible public figures. Aimé Meigret’s preaching provides a remarkably instructive example about the way contemporaries reacted to the teaching of an outspoken preacher. A rare constellation of sources reveal what he said and how it was received, including his sermon of 25 April 1524 in Grenoble, depositions by fifteen mostly hostile witnesses, the Faculty of Theology’s condemnation of his sermons there and at Lyon, as well as evidence about the impression that his preaching made across France. At Grenoble, having only one day to speak, Meigret attempted to summarize the message that he had been expounding at length in Lyon.123 The theological core of his teaching is a clearly Pauline interpretation of justification by faith in Christ through grace. He told his audience that evangelical doctrine, which is “new to us,” directly opposes the theologians’ teachings about faith and works. From this basis, he 122 “Nichil de Girardi nostri pura ac christiana praedicatione ad te scribo, quod jam pluribus epistolis compertum habeas, et fueris ipse expertus. Adeo sibi circumspectus est cum sinceritate sermo, ut nullus pateat calumniatorum insidiis locus, ita autem ut nichil veritatis evangelicae praetermittat.” Le Sueur to Farel [before 1 May 1524], Herminjard 1, no. 102, 216–219, 218–219; Schmidt, Gérard Roussel, no. 1, 169–171. 123 Meigret declared to his audience that the central truth is that “Par la foy sommes justifiez. Les bonnes œuvre et a Dieu agreables sont le fruict de nostre justification,” which he contrasts with “scholastic theologians’” notion of actus fidei and actus spei (“J’espère felicité supernaturelle par mes merites et la grace de Dieu”); see Henry Guy, ed., “Le sermon d’Aimé Meigret,” Annales de l’Université de Grenoble, new series, Lettres-Droits 5 (1928), 181–222; especially 205–211.

the network knits together, –

297

attacked the cult of the saints, fasting, clerical celibacy, the conceit that being in orders is a more perfect state of Christian life, as well as the church’s commandments and system of merits. Meigret’s exposition stresses Lutheran themes: the law is a pedagogue; Christians are free from the law under the gospel and thereby, through faith, better able to fulfill it; salvation by faith apart from works consoles whereas the church’s doctrine of the law damns consciences; and the church’s false doctrines are satanic inventions. Witnesses hostile to Meigret’s sermon reported very little of his explicit assertions about the true essence of the faith, retaining only his attacks on the clergy and traditions of the church.124 Only two, evidently sympathetic, listeners restated the soteriological core of his sermon. This same pattern of selective reporting, which was in keeping with the inquisitorial purpose of such investigations, probably characterizes the Faculty of Theology’s censures of Mazurier, Caroli, Mazurier, d’Arande, Roussel, and others, whose original sermons we lack. Traditionalists registered the evangelicals’ most egregious breaches of orthodox doctrine and traditional practice, rather than the core teachings upon which such attacks were built. They did not seek to engage and refute evangelicals’ arguments, but merely to condemn them as transgressions of received truths that were held to be beyond discussion. Like his sermon at Grenoble, Meigret’s sermons at Lyon created a widespread stir. In Le Puy-de-Dôme in Auvergne, a local notable, Étienne Médicis, recorded that, in reaction to Meigret’s attacks on the jubilee indulgence offered at the city’s famous shrine of the Black Virgin: The good Lady of Le Puy became very upset and he was arrested in short order. . . . This Meigret defended the errors of that damned apostate and heretic, Martin Luther.125

124 Henri Hours analyzes these testimonies with great insight in “Procès d’hérésie contre Aimé Maigret (Lyon-Grenoble: 1524),” BHR 19 (1957), 23–28 for analysis and 29–43 for transcriptions of the witnesses’ depositions. 125 “Item, en ce mesme dit an [1524], ung tel prescheur comme ceulx desquels venons de parler, preschoit à Lion, affirmant le contraire de la verité de ce sainct Pardon. Mais finablement la bonne Dame du Puy n’en fut pas bien contente, car ne tarda guieres qu’il fut apprehendé, et l’appelloit-on Mesgret, qui soubstenoit les erreurs de ce mauldit apostat et heretique Martin Luther.” Augustin Chassaing, Le livre de Podio ou chroniques d’Étienne Médicis, bourgeois du Puy (Le Puy-en-Lay: M.-P. Marchessov), 1874, vol. 1, 185.

298

chapter seven – from meaux to madrid

Indeed, Médicis was well informed. Meigret had been taken into custody in late 1524 as related above. His arrival for trial in Paris made a similar impression there.126 Moreover, Meigret had indeed explicitly defended Luther’s doctrines. In his published sermon from Grenoble, he proclaimed: We have reached that miserable state that anyone who preaches the gospel is called a heretic or Lutheran, and one who lauds human traditions and inventions is, in your judgment, an evangelical preacher.127

In other words, Meigret asserted that true doctrine was not “Lutheran,” but implied that Luther had taught true doctrine. Everyone caught his meaning. While a well-known figure, Meigret ranked in popular reports as only one of several heretical preachers poisoning France. Étienne Médicis related that during Lent 1524 a “pack of preachers” had denigrated his Lady of Le Puy, including one at Bourges who was likely Michel d’Arande. This heretic, Médicis attested, also received his due. As soon as this preacher at Bourges uttered his blasphemy against the Virgin, his pulpit collapsed under him, throwing him to the ground, and, appropriately, he turned dark as coal. The Black Virgin of Le Puy’s “evident sign and miracle,” Médicis relates, convinced the majority of the parish to make the pilgrimage to Le Puy.128

126 Meigret arrived on 1 February 1525, Journal d’un bourgeois de Paris, ed. Ludovic Lalanne, Société de l’Histoire de France (Paris: Renouard, 1854; repr. New York, 1965), 226. 127 “A telle misère sommes venus, que qui vous presche et declaire l’Evangile est heretique ou Lutherien; qui magnifie les humaines traditions et inventions (a vostre jugement) est prescheur evangelique.” Guy, Sermon d’Aimé Meigret, 207. One of Meigret’s auditors, the Dominican J. Audry, had heard Pierre de Sébiville say to neighbor in the audience: “Acousté bien à la fin, car vous verrés qu’il dira merveilles et soustiendra bien les oppinions de Leuter.” Hours, “Procès d’hérésie contre Aimé Maigret,” 40. On 9 March 1525, the Faculty of Theology censured Meigret for having affirmed “Propositio VIII. Quod ille maledicit et est detractor, qui dicit: Que Luther et mechant homme.” D’Argentré, Collectio judiciorum 2, pt. 1, 13. 128 “Item, aussi pareillement destourna plusieurs d’y venir ung tas de prescheurs qui, de leur povoir, en preschant la karesme en plusieurs parties, detraictoient ledict sainct Jubilé contre droict et equité, en dilacerant l’honneur, le bien et le loz du très-sainct, devot et singulier habitacle de Nostre Dame du Pus d’Anis et dudict Pardon, là de tout ancienneté cultivé, ainsi qu’il appert par beaucop de vieulx escripts. Dont à plusieurs de ces prescheurs n’en print pas trop bien, car ung devot prebstre du diocese de Bourges raconta là-hault en ladicte saincte eglise que, en sa perroisse, ung prescheur affirmoit au peuple le Pardon du Puy estre une fatuité et que ce n’estoit qu’un fol vouloir d’y venir, lequel tantost lesdite paroles ainsi laidement proferées, la chiere et luy, tout rua jus, et vint soubdainement aussi noir que charbon; de quoy ledit peuple, qui cella avoit

the network knits together, –

299

Through hearsay, preaching, judicial investigations, and print, conservatives succeeded in portraying key members of the network as leaders of a larger, shadowy menace. In January 1525, a chronicler at Paris reported that the College of Cardinal Lemoine (Lefèvre, Farel, and Roussel’s old school) had become a center of Lutheran heresy, and blamed the bishop of Meaux.129 A year later, after the parlement, Faculty of Theology, and juges délégués had launched their trial and punishment of a group of heretics from Meaux,130 Parisians considered the whole diocese to be a Lutheran enclave under the leadership of “Falry,” meaning Lefèvre d’Étaples, better known by his Latin name Faber [Fabri] Stapulensis.131 During the parlement’s investigation of the Meaux group, Briçonnet’s lawyer reported the Franciscans there had called the bishop the “heretic of Meaux,” and blamed his heresies for the capture of the king (God’s punishment for them).132 ouy et veu, s’en esmerveilla moult; si se recommandarent humblement à la Vierge Marie du Puy, et y vindrent la plus grande partie de la perroisse bien devotement rendre graces à Nostre Dame et gaigner le sainct pardon, & racontarent tout au long le contenue de ce mistere . . . “Ce n’est petit de chose de oser entreprendre de parler ainsi desordonnéement de la noble maison imperiale de la bonne Dame, de laquelle tous bons chrestiens reçoivent tant de graces, dons et beneffices, et [oùt] Dieu, pour l’honneur de sa benoiste Mere, monstre journellement evidens signes et miracles.” Chassaing, Le livre de Podio, vol. 1, 184–185. Médicis [Podio] cites Meigret’s preaching, as in note 125 above, as one of his examples for this assertion. 129 “Item, en ce moys [January 1525] y eust esmeutte au Cardinal-le-Moyne, à cause d’aucuns leuteriens qui y estoient, et pulluloit fort la mauvaise doctrine, de laquell on estimoit estre fauteur monsr. de Meaulx.” Driart, 101–102. 130 The investigation of heretics from Meaux escalated from late 1524 into 1526. See note 51 above. Contemporary chroniclers took note; see Driart, 101–102, 104–105, and 113; Lalanne, Bourgeois, 276–277, 363; and Fagniez, Versoris, no. 292, 87. 131 “Falry” might be a conflation of Farel’s name, but it would seem unlikely since he had been absent for two years. “Au dict an [1525], la veille de Noel. . . . Et faut noter que la plus grande partie de Meaulx estoit infectée de la faulce doctrine de Luther, et disoit-on, qu’un nommé Falry, prestre, estudiant avec autres, estoit cause des dictz embrouillemens , et entre autres choses, qu’il ne falloit avoir ès églises aucunes images, ne prendre eaue béniste pour effacer tous les péchez, ne prier pour les trespassez, à cause qu’incontinent après le trespas ilz alloient en paradis ou en enfer, te qu’il n’y avoit nul purgatoire, et qu’il n’estoit vray et ne le croyoit pas.” Lalanne, Bourgeois, 276–277. Similarly, Pierre Driart reported: “En ce temps [December 1525] regnoit fort ceste mauldicte secte de lutheriens et principallement en l’evesché de Meaulx.” Driart, 113. 132 18 August 1525, in defense of Briçonnet, his lawyer “dit que quelque foys il y avoit ung frere à Meaulx qui voulloit prescher, et pour ce que le curé luy dit qu’il eust pacience, luy respondit qu’il estoit des Lutheriens de Meaulx et que, si on le voulloit croyre, ils seront IIIIxx Cordeliers avec IIIIxx harquebutes. Et ce sont ventéz qu’ils avoient un arrest à l’encontre de l’evesque de Meaulx, l’appellant heretique de Meaulx, et dissant: c’est par cest heretique de Meaulx et par ses heresies que le Roy est prisonnier.”

300

chapter seven – from meaux to madrid

People on the street came to know the tales of and put names to the chief members of the pack of preachers mentioned by Médicis and, like the parlement, blamed them for the calamities washing over France. In journals and popular anti-heretical literature, d’Arande, Mazurier, Meigret, Sébiville, and Marguerite were all targeted as leaders of the heretics. A report circulated at Paris in early 1525 that a Franciscan had been burned at Grenoble for being a Lutheran and that his companion had fled to Germany to be with Luther.133 The rumor resembles the fate that Pierre de Sébiville had been threatened with in December 1524 but not actually suffered. In the figure of the supposedly executed friar’s friend may lurk the memory of François Lambert, whose relations with his fellow Franciscan are not known, or Sébiville’s ally, Anémond de Coct, who, though not a Franciscan, had indeed fled like Lambert to be with Luther and may in the telling have acquired the cowl. Accounts of the spread of the Peasants’ War into Lorraine during the spring of 1525 became a lodestone that attracted all other stories about heretics in France. Fresh after the disaster at Pavia, the French had interpreted the spread of this uprising towards the borders of the kingdom as an invasion by Lutherans and their massacre by the duke of Lorraine as a blessing from God.134 In the Chanson des Leutheriens,

AN X1A 342, 255v, cited in Michel Veissière, “Le procès de Guillaume Briçonnet au Parlement de Paris en 1525 II: Quelques Textes,” BSHPF 132 (1986), 543–560. 133 “Au dict an [1525], en février, fut bruslé à Grenoble un cordelier qui tenoit le parti de Luther, . . . et y eust un aultre cordelier qui estoit son compaignon qui s’enfuit et s’en alla en Allemagne devers Luther.” Lalanne, Bourgeois, 227–228. 134 The spread of the Peasants’ War to Lorraine was interpreted at Paris as a “Lutheran” invasion; see Lalanne, Bourgeois, 244–245; Driart, 107; Cronique du roy Françoys Premier, 31 and 54; Fagniez, Versoris, no. 236, 74–75; and for the reports recorded in the minutes of the Parlement of Paris, which constitutes a sort of official version of the events, see Veissière, Guillaume Briçonnet, 324. The defeat of the Peasants may well have been a more sinister affair. A chronicler at Metz sympathetic to the peasants recorded that under promise of a safe-conduct, M. de Guise convinced the peasants to surrender, separated the disarmed peasants into small groups, and then under the pretext of their breaking the peace, systematically butchered them. See Huguenin, Chroniques de la ville de Metz, 821–822. A vernacular song composed circa 1525 holds up the defeat of the Peasants as a warning against those who were turning to follow Luther in protest against the king! The author promises that the king would reestablish peace upon his return: “Par jour et nuit ont combatu [the duke of Lorraine and his forces] / Très bien que on les prise; / Lutherériens sont confondus, / Dont Dieu l’ont regracie. / . . . O bons Françoys, ne faite pas/Courser vostre Dieu pour ce cas,/Car c’est chose vilaine./Prenez aultre part vos esbas, / Sans point cercher, ne hault, ne bas, / L’erreur Luthérienne. / Le temps viendra qui n’est venu, / Qu’aurés à votre guise / Vostre roy qui est détenu, / En paix, je vous affie.” Le Roux de Lincy, ed., Recueil de chants historiques depuis le XIIe jusqu’au

the network knits together, –

301

which was composed during the summer of 1525, after rejoicing over the slaughter of 40,000 ‘Lutheran’ peasants by the duke of Lorraine, the author chastises their homegrown brethren: Where did you [Lutherans] get the crazy idea to concoct a new faith and condemn the time-honored law? That’s heresy to a tee. Under the guise of doing a good turn, you’ve slipped your error into Alençon, where Michel [d’Arande] has taught Lord knows what kind of theology. And at Meaux the carders of frise have their grand provost, the good prophet Marcial [Mazurier], who preaches in some God forsaken way. If the exalted knight of the house of Guise [Lorraine] would have encountered you in that flock [of peasants], you’d best have commended your hide to heaven, for he would have tanned it full well. . . . Because of your foolish deeds, the people die of famine, war grinds them down, and plague takes us all by surprise. Everyone damns you for these calamities. The Green Oak [Guillaume Duchesne, one of the juges délégués] will call you to account and expose your sect, which has brought every evil down on us.135

In Le chappeau des Lutheriens, written toward the end of the 1520s, the author all but names Marguerite and Lefèvre when giving a detailed

XVIIIe siècle avec des notices et une introduction, 2 vols. (Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1969 [1841–1842]), vol. 2, 98–99. 135 “D’ou vous vient ceste fantasie / Vouloir une foi innover / Et l’antique loi reprouver / C’est ung parfaict tour d’eresie. / Soubz une simple courtoisie / Vostre erreur creust iusques Alençon / Michelot en faisoit leçon/Dieu scet desquelle theologie. / A Meaulx les escardeurs de frise/Avec leur grant provincial / Le bon prophete Marcial / Y preschent Dieu scait de quel guise. / Si le hault chevalier de Guise / Vous eust rencontrez au tropeau. / A dieu commande vostre peau / On leust conroye de main mise. / . . . Par la vostre sotte entreprinse / Le peuple par famine est mort / D’aultre coste guerre le mort / Peste nous suit à la surprinse. / Chascun vous en athematise / Le chesne vert sur vous criera / Et vostre secte descriera / Qui au monde tout mal atise.” From La chanson des Leutheriens in La balade des leutheriens avec la chanson [Lyon: Jacques Moderne, 1525?], fol. 3r–4r. Paris SHP Rés. 15939, in-8°, Higman, Piety, B 1. The Chanson must have been composed before the death of the juge délégué Guillaume Duchesne, “Le chesne vert,” in November 1525. “Au dict an 1525, au mois de novembre, trespassa monsieur de Quercu [= Duchesne], docteur en théologie, curé de Sainct-Jean en Grève, et est inhumé en la dicte église, et estoit très homme de bien, grand clerc et bon prédicateur, et avoit d’aage environ de soixante et quatorze ans.” Lalanne, Bourgeois, 270. Though Pierre Driart got the month of his death and first name wrong (there was another Jean Duchesne (Quercus), but he was not the curate of Saint-Jean-en-Grève), he reports that Duchesne’s reputation was as great as that of Jean Gerson! September 1525, “Jehan du Quercu,” Doctor of Theology and curé of Saint-Jean-en-Grève dies, “qui lisoit et preschoit continuellement, bon catholique et ennemy des Luteriens pour son temps, autant optime que de son temps avoit esté maistre Jehan de Gerson.” Driart, 111. For mention of Guillaume Duschene, curate of Saint-Jean-en-Grève, as one of the juges délégués, and of his having passed away since the pope first licensed them in 1525, see Fraikin, Nonciatures de Clément VII, vol. 1, 430 and 432.

302

chapter seven – from meaux to madrid

account of how they had fomented heresy in France. In a section titled “Lutherans are almoners,”136 having attacked women who have had Luther’s writings translated into the vernacular and preachers who spread Lutheran doctrine, the author launches into an incisive attack on leading members of the network.137 Claiming to have been the student of an unnamed ‘crafty bastard,’ a teacher at Paris with whom Luther a made secret alliance, the author describes this “evil man” as the one who had introduced heresy into France through his translations of the Gospels and Psalms. Through these he had ensnared honorable women as well as the always-suspect urban conventicles of laywomen and -men, the “Beguines and Gaultiers.” Next, he relates about this man: After he had translated the Scriptures, he had wool combers and carders preach, women too, which goes against nature. A certain Michel got involved as best he could, inspiring phony zealots (caffardeurs). He had the support of the patron of type cutters, who sent him to stir up Normandy, where now the faith goes begging in many places.138

Although the author is careful not to name Lefèvre d’Étaples, whom he describes as having fled to escape being burned like the cloth workers from Meaux, or Marguerite, the patron of type cutters,139 he does finger Michel [d’Arande], her almoner, who had preached at Alençon and Bourges at her request. The author of the poem was certainly well informed, for during 1525, in the wake of d’Arande’s preaching at Bourges, local officials found evidence of an evangelical cell. Soon 136

Michel d’Arande was one of Marguerite’s almoners until 1526, when Gérard Roussel replaced him. 137 In its first half, Le chappeau des Lutheriens gives a roughly chronological history of the development of Lutheran heresy in France. The section in question corresponds to the period prior to the Meaux group’s flight in October 1525. See ll. 55–150, in Jean Babelon, La bibliothèque de Fernand Colomb, Revue des Bibliothèques, suppl. 10 (Paris: Champion, 1913), appendix 2, 262–264. Giving this passage different interpretive weight, Guy Bedouelle stresses the ‘willed calumny or meanness’ of the author in making Lefèvre out to be as ‘extreme’ as the other preachers at Meaux. See Bedouelle, Lefèvre, 106–107. 138 “Apres qu’il eust translaté l’Escripture, / Il fist prescher paigneurs et eschardeurs, / Femmes aussi, qui est contre nature; / Ung Michelet si [se] mist a l’adventure / Qui dedans Meaulx faistoit du caffardeurs, / Il eut appuy du patron des fondeurs, / Qui l’envoya barboullier Normandie, / La ou la foy en aulcuns lieux mandye.” Le chappeau des Lutheriens, ll. 127–134, in Babelon, La bibliothèque de Fernand Colomb, 264. 139 “Fondeur: Fondeur en caractères d’imprimerie ou simplement fondeur en caractères,” Dictionnaire de la langue française: abrégé du Dictionnaire de Littré, ed. A. Beaujean (Le Livre de Poche, 1990). The author seems to imply that Marguerite protected heretical type-cutters (who were sometimes also printers), perhaps alluding to Simon Du Bois, who moved to Marguerite’s Alençon from Paris in 1529.

the network knits together, –

303

after d’Arande’s departure, a weaver was caught with a package of Lutheran books.140 The king’s sister and Lefèvre d’Étaples, who was tutor of the king’s children at the time that this poem was written (c. 1529), could not be singled out without risking retribution from the crown, but their identity would have been clear to any reader attuned to recent events. If Marguerite could not be named, Beda had been sure of her role in private,141 and the rumor of her support of ‘heretics’ circulated broadly. In 1525, within the cloister of Notre-Dame of Paris, malcontents staged a procession in which people made up as devils sporting the name Luther on their front and back led about a lady on horseback. This event may be interpreted as an attack on Marguerite and her band of Lutheran sympathizers.142 In these years, the network was known to the public through the personas of its leading members. Traditional Catholics exaggerated when they portrayed network members as the vanguard of a broad Lutheran movement, but they did identify with little distortion the same people that the network’s adherents acclaimed as their chiefs. Within weeks of the parlement’s sweeping indictment at Meaux in the fall of 1525, commoners narrated the suffering of their brethren and particularly the leading preachers in protest songs. They sang, “Stop preaching the gospel truth, Master Michaël. There’s too great a danger of being

140

“A Bourges, dés 1525, peu de mois après le départ d’Arande, et pendant la vacance du siège, on lit publiquement dans le palais ducal, les œuvres de Luther. L’année suivante [1526], une enquête ordonnée par les vicaires capitulaires fait découvrir chez un tissesrand, Pierre Wulgrin, tout un ballot de livres hérétiques: livres imprimés ou copiés à la main, quelques-uns glosés par des particuliers.” Imbart, Origines 3, 195, citing AD Cher G 378, Délib. capit., fol. 96 [1 December 1525] and fol. 155 [4 October 1526]. 141 See chapter 6, note 136. 142 Speaking of events in the summer of 1525, Knecht relates: “The threat of heresy was also perceived as home-based. A masquerade, held in the cloister of Notre-Dame, included a woman on horseback drawn by devils with placards on their chests and backs bearing Luther’s name. This reflected the belief, widely held in Paris, that Lutheranism flourished at the French court, for the woman was almost certainly meant to portray Marguerite, the king’s evangelically minded sister.” Knecht, Renaissance Warrior, 236, citing AN X1A 1530, fols. 33b–34a. The incident may be a satirical representation of the assertion, ascribed to Pierre Caroli, that if illuminated by God “a devout woman could understand Holy Scripture better than” the doctors of theology. Caroli developed an extensive argument for allowing women to read and even interpret Scripture. See his propositions 20–25, in d’Argentré, Collectio judiciorum 2, pt. 1, 27, and for partial translation and notes, see Herminjard 1, no. 158, 378–380.

304

chapter seven – from meaux to madrid

dragged to jail! Tu-ral-lu, ral-la, ral-lé.”143 That was sensible advice, for a warrant was out for d’Arande’s arrest and he had not yet been taken into custody, as had many of his brethren and less well-connected fellow preachers at Meaux. D’Arande would soon turn up at Strasbourg with Lefèvre and Roussel. Beyond heretical doctrines, conservatives particularly excoriated these leaders of religious dissent for promoting conventicles of commoners and women, who discussed religion and even “preached” amongst themselves. As in the passage from Le chappeau des leutheriens cited above, all Catholic accounts charged evangelicals with fomenting social and religious disorder by forming such devotional circles. In justifying its edict of 5 February 1526 forbidding the publication, sale, or possession of Lutheran books, translations of Scripture, or the Meaux group’s Epistres et Evangiles, the parlement reasoned that: Many people who read the books of Holy Scripture translated from Latin into French dream up heresies, form conventicles to debate about the Catholic faith, condemn the commandments and ministers of the church, separate themselves from the common body of the true faithful in their views on the church’s sacraments, teachings, and commandments, and sow other damned errors. Because of this, myriad scandals, evils, and misfortunes have fallen and will continue to descend on the kingdom.144 143 “Ne prêchez plus la vérité / Maître Michel! / Contenue en l’Evangile, / Il y a trop grand danger / D’être mené / Dans la Conciergerie, . . . .” Henri-Léonard Bordier, Le chansonnier huguenot du XVIe siècle, 2 vols. (Paris: Tross, 1870; repr. Geneva: Slatkine, 1969), vol. 1, xiii ff. for documents concerning the protest songs and their text, which are reprinted in René-Jacques Lovy, Les origines de la Réforme française: Meaux, 1518–1546 (Paris: Libraire Protestante, 1959), 151–153. Henry Heller asserts based on this stanza: “The radical craftsmen meanwhile increasingly scoffed at the timidity of the Fabrists. In the Marché of Meaux the craftsmen sang mocking verses about the once revered curate of St. Michel [i.e., those quoted above].” Heller, The Conquest of Poverty, 33, cf. 57–58. This analysis does not stand up to scrutiny. All three protest songs are in sympathy with the ministers of Meaux. The one just quoted goes on to mock the “chapperons fourrés” (justices), “satellites” of “l’ennemi” [the Devil], who were pursuing d’Arande and the others. In a second protest song, the craftsmen of the Marché complained: “Je me plains fort / Qu’on me veuille ruer jus / La vraie doctrine / Qui est du bon Jésus; / Et qu’on a oppressé / Aussi ses bons ministres / Parce qu’ils ont parlé / De la sainte évangile; . . .” (Emphasis added). There is no indication in these songs, as alleged by Heller, that the people drew a distinction between conservative Fabrists and more radical preachers. The laity would have had good reason to be upset after 1526 when the Fabrists did return but not to Meaux. 144 “Et pource que plusieurs personnes au moyen de ce qu’ilz lisent les livres de la saincte escripture translatez de latin en francois sont inventeurs de plusieurs heresies, font conventicules, et disputent et traictent de la foi catholicque, contempnent les commandemens et ministres de l’eglise, se divertissent du train commun des vrais

the network knits together, –

305

Similarly, in a public epistolary exchange, Beda browbeat Erasmus for advocating that the Scriptures should be translated into the vernacular by pointing to the events at Meaux as proof of how nefarious an idea this was.145 Scholars have seconded the conservatives’ view that access to the vernacular Bible led the laity to deviate in doctrine and commit acts of iconoclasm. The ripping down of the jubilee indulgence placards and prayers to Mary at Meaux are the most noteworthy of several similar disturbances, which, scholars have claimed, show that the Fabrists had lost control of the movement they had started.146 Before assessing the claim about the Fabrists’ loss of control, one needs first to determine whether, as accused, they took the truly revolutionary step of forming, promoting, and nourishing evangelical cells. The evidence reveals that network members did seek to establish groups in which lay people could read and discuss Scripture, as well as to participate in various devotions such as prayer. At Meaux, aside from the circle of scholars gathered at the bishop’s court, a group of local notables led by Nicolas Le Sueur remembered Farel fondly, promising him their financial aid to publish evangelical literature for the instruction of such groups.147 At court, Marguerite drew together an evangelical circle by having d’Arande teach and preach while she instructed others eager for evangelical doctrine.148 Similarly, at Grenoble, a group of local notables championed Sébiville’s preaching and helped to secure his release from prison. Sébiville reported in December 1524

fideles quant aux sacremens predications et service de l’eglise, et sement grans erreurs dont viennent et pourroient advenir plusieurs scandalles, maulx, et inconveniens en ce royaulme.” Les arrestz et ordonnances de la court contre Luther: les lutheriens et leurs livres: et aultres livres deffendus, a2v [ Paris, 1526?]. This rare, published parlementary arrest appears to have been printed within days of being announced through the streets of Paris. It also contains the text of the parlement’s edict of 12 August 1523 against possession of books by Luther. Parisians took note of this edict; Lalanne, Bourgeois, 276; Cronique du Roy Françoys, 55. 145 Beda to Erasmus, Paris, 21 May 1525, Allen 6, no. 1579, 81–86, ll. 154–166. For a fine exposition of the public exchange between Beda and Erasmus, see Farge, Orthodoxy, 186–197. 146 See Imbart, Origines 3, 180–181, 184–185, and 271 ff.; Nicholls, “The Nature of Popular Heresy in France, 1520–1542,” 264–270; idem, “Sectarianism and the French Reformation,” 38–41; and Potter A History of France, 1460–1560, 242–244. 147 As reported to Farel by Roussel, 24 August 1524, Herminjard 1, no. 117, 270–273, 273. 148 See chapter 6, note 30.

306

chapter seven – from meaux to madrid

that such groups of the faithful, like the one gathered around him at Grenoble, met to discuss religious matters, read books, pray, and, occasionally, as Canaye described at Paris, to hear sermons in private. And although Sébiville claimed that authorities were much less troubled by these private meetings than by his public sermons, this was not the case elsewhere—as at Meaux. Private meetings, nevertheless, certainly proved harder to police than public sermons.149 Significant numbers of artisans also adhered to the movement.150 The Meaux group had specifically intended to reach all orders, including the lowest, with their intensive religious education. Bishop Briçonnet had established daily lectures on Romans and the Psalms, which was, in effect, a sort of lay Bible school that served as a model for such cells. These groups became the basis for conventicules et monopolia. The local prosecutor at Meaux reported that, after Roussel’s sermons: Many wool-combers, carders, and other unlettered people of that sort had books of Paul’s Epistles, the Gospels, and the Psalms in their native tongue, which they carried about with them—even though they had been forbidden to dispute about religion, the faith, the sacraments, privileges of Rome, and paintings and images, which they wanted to do away with—and they formed conventicles and monopolia in the church. Notably, on the feast day of the Purification of the Virgin and last Sunday [5 February 1525] they threatened to beat those who were staging a play about it.151

149 “Pour confabuler ensemble secrètement de l’Évangille nul ne dict rien, mais de en parler publicquement il n’y pend que le feu. Les Thomistez ont voulu procéder contre moy par inquisition et caption de personne, et sy ne feust certains amys secretz, je estoie mys entre les mains des Pharisée[n]s. Je ne dis pas que il ny aye merveilleusement grands zélateurs de l’Évangille, mais ilz sont en petit nombre.” Herminjard 1, no. 132, 313–316. 150 For a detailed presentation of the “Popular Roots of the Reformation: The Lutherans of Meaux,” see Heller, The Conquest of Poverty, 27–69. Heller’s account of the Calvinist revolt revolves around describing the social disjunction, antagonism, and eventual compromise between urban notables and artisans. See below for remarks about the Meaux group’s attempt to cultivate lay people of all social orders as, in effect, religious teachers. 151 “Lundi 6 février 1524 [1525 n.s.], le promoteur représenta que tous les dimanches et fêtes après le sermon que M. Gérard Roussel, trésorier et chanoine, avait fait, que plusieurs peigneurs, cardeurs et autres gens de même trempe, non lettrés, avaient des livres des épistres de saint Paul, des évangiles, des psaumes, en langues maternelles, qu’ils portent avec eux, quoiqu’il leur fût défendu de disputer sur la religion, sur la foi, les sacrements, privilèges de Rome, et des peintures et images qu’ils voulaient oster, et qu’ils font des conventicules et monopolia dans l’église, et notamment le jour de la Purification de la Vierge, et le dimanche dernier ayant menacé de frapper ceux qui leur représentaient.” Charles Schmidt, “Gérard Roussel, inculpé d’hérésie à Meaux, 1525,” BSHPF 10 (1861), 220.

the network knits together, –

307

The implication was that Roussel had fostered such heretical disturbances. One of the lay leaders during these meetings was the wool-carder Jean Le Clerc, who has been mentioned above.152 A few months after being banished from France, he went to the stake at Metz for having defaced images there and asserting his right as a layman to speak the truth when the ministers fell silent.153 Impetuous and outspoken, Le Clerc’s actions were but a slight aberration of the Meaux group’s plans. Although Gérard Roussel did not trust Le Clerc to carry letters for him safely to Metz, he commiserated with Farel about this layman’s suffering at Meaux and ultimate end at Metz.154 Indeed, as reported above, Roussel had been closely implicated in the events for which Le Clerc was banished. Moreover, Le Clerc’s deep biblical learning, which was appreciated by fellow evangelicals at Metz and noted by the crowd at the time of his execution, was exactly what the Meaux group intended to produce: lay people learned in the Scriptures who were capable of perpetuating the faith.155 Such evidence indicates that the Meaux group and their evangelical confreres throughout France consciously sought to establish and nourish a sort of catacomb church under the umbrella of the vitiated church militant. Indeed, as in the Brief recueil and Lefèvre’s preface to the Psalms, many books that the network published specifically

152 While Pierre Driart did not record his name, he did describe Le Clerc’s crimes and sentence accurately enough; see Driart, 104–105. 153 See chapter 1, at note 12 for quotation. 154 “. . . ut mihi justior querendi occasio relicta videatur quam tibi, etiamsi has partes in tuis postremis literis, iisque inabsolutis, praeripueris, hac, opinor, occasione motus quod per illum non scripserim qui apud nos multa passus, vitam finivit apud Metenses: id quod a me praetermissum est, quod metuerem ne interciperentur literae, nec satis compertum esset num fuerit te conventurus, cum non de industria sed inopinato hunc Metis repereris. De quo Christi milite non scribo, quod noris plus satis quae erga se acta sunt per eos qui hoc nomine se Christi esse gloriantur, quod fortiter tueantur traditiones quas a patribus acceperunt, nec interim, veluti animalia minime bisulca ac ruminantia, expendant quam absint a Christo, qui verus pater es, et apostolis, qui pro patribus nati sunt filii quos constituit Dominus super omnem terram.” Roussel to Farel, 25 September 1525, Herminjard 1, no. 162, 390; Schmidt, Gérard Roussel, no. 5, 185–187. 155 At Metz, Le Clerc joined the city’s small, embattled evangelical group, which was in close contact via Pierre Toussain, Guillaume Farel, and François Lambert to their brethren at Strasbourg and Basel. See the letters circulated in this circle from July through August 1525 in Herminjard 5, no. 153b, 385–388, no. 154a, 388–391; Herminjard 1, no. 155, 371–373, no. 157, 375–377. For Jean Le Clerc’s deeds and ‘martyrdom’ at Metz, see the chronicle as in note 86.

308

chapter seven – from meaux to madrid

addressed themselves to these groups of the faithful.156 This claim that early evangelicals intentionally fostered the development of quasi-clandestine church groups is important, for it recasts the whole debate about whether or not evangelicals intended to break with the existing church into more comprehensible terms. Network members did not a priori recognize the militant church, at least in France, as the true church only as its inescapable shell. Effectively, they had already relegated this structure to the realm of adiaphora, those things that are neither necessary nor fundamentally pernicious to the true church, the body of Christ. When discussing the office of minister with Farel, Gérard Roussel agreed that the people should be able to choose their own ministers.157 He only stipulates that the people must first be well instructed in true doctrine, so that they might choose well. When Roussel next states that he was not opposed to a hierarchy within the church, he was neither affirming or rejecting the existing situation, only stating the need to have a hierarchy that conforms to the will of the Holy Spirit, “whatever in the end that may be” (quicunque tandem sit). As far as his embryonic discussion of church polity goes, Roussel has withdrawn confidence from the existing church rather than entirely broken with it. His attitude is reminiscent of Lefèvre’s assertion that the church

156 For instance, the anonymous Epistre chrestienne (Paris: Simon Du Bois, 1525?; Higman, Piety, F 8) is addressed to “Ma treschere seur, . . . et tous ceulx qui ont desir, que l’honneur de Dieu soit garde” (A2r), whom the author, possibly Farel, urges to remember the ‘spiritual understanding’ of Christ’s sacrifice, “[il] est ressucité pour nostre justification, affin que puyssiez edifier vostre mesnage en la crainte de dieu, et tous voz prochains en l’edification du vray corps de Jesuchrist” (C4r). The italicized passage clearly states the internal missionary intent of such works. 157 “Pastoris munus, ut neque nomen, non arrogo mihi, etiamsi in numerato habeam solos haberi [pastores] quos ad ministerium verbi deligit spiritus. Non agam tecum in re de qua nolim quemquam digladiari, cum nobis hoc agendum sedulo, quo verbum Christi annuncietur, ut maxime nulli suus decedat honor. Certum est Philippum diaconum, ab apostolis designatum in ministerium pauperum, gratiam habuisse verbi, ut fidem facit liber Actorum; tamen, utcumque suo ministerio fidem recepissent Samaritani, duxerunt apostoli mittendos Petrum et Joanem, ut impositis manibus reciperent spiritum, perinde ac si non haberet Philippus idem donum quod apostoli, aut, quod magis placet, ne quicquam tibi dissentiam, in hoc missi sunt ut illorum assensu concordi cum Philippo Samaritanorum fides roboraretur. Nec mihi displicet ordo in ecclesia: sed hunc solum amplector quem exhibet ac requirit spiritus, quicunque tandem sit, ne infirmos nactus oculos cogar deinde in luce meridiei cecutire. Presbyteros a populo deligi mihi probatur, sed requiro antea populum fieri christianum et Dei agi spiritu, qui, si desit, non video qui ita succurri possit christianae rei, cum scindatur incertum studia in contraria vulgus. Sed de his hactenus, ne videar quicquam iis refragari quae cunctis persuasa esse velim, ut qui maxime.” Roussel to Farel, 6 July 1524, Herminjard 1, no. 104, 231–240, 236; Schmidt, Gérard Roussel, no. 2, 171–178.

the network knits together, –

309

was in a middle age of unsound doctrine. Roussel and Lefèvre were not wedded to the traditional church, but neither did they consider it their duty to reject or flee it completely, for in the process they would have to abandon those whom they considered to be the true body of the church: the people. Roussel and other evangelicals thought that the only basis for the perpetuation of the church lay in teaching true doctrine to the laity. In the face of the militant church’s hostility to it, they resorted to fostering conventicles of true believers. Anémond de Coct and Antoine Papillon likened their situation in France to a remnant of God’s people that would embrace “Christ returning from exile in Egypt.”158 The evangelicals’ decision to form and instruct lay groups behind the back of church officials and secular authorities was a strategic step dictated by circumstances and rooted in certain fundamental beliefs. As Lefèvre had argued in his preface to his Commentarii initiatorii in quatuor Evangelia,159 secular and church officials only exercised true authority to the extent that they conformed and promoted the word of God. And if, as is plain from their statements, the network members did not regard the Roman or Gallican churches, or rather their clergies, as legitimate in this absolute religious sense, they certainly recognized that these hierarchies exercised real temporal authority, which had to be dealt with. If church officials opposed true religion, then they had to be circumvented until the time when they might be converted.

158 “Futurum profecto esse video, ut non modo Galliae nostrae, verum et Italia et Hispania gentesque reliquae Christum ex Aegypto redeuntem ambabus ulnis sint excepturae.” Anémond de Coct to Reader, 1 February 1524, WA Br 3, no. 657, 148–149; Herminjard 1, no. 86, 184–186, [dated 24 January 1524]. “Quodque vehementissime dolendum est, tanta hypocriticae hujus justiciae vis, tam crassum speciosumque tectorium est, ut nostrorum oculi latentem sub his impuritatem pervidere non possint. Tam multos praeterea Romanense illud idolum satellites omnis generis sibi apud nos comparavit, ut nusquam aut plures, aut potentiores, aut versutiores. Quos tametsi Deus contriturus sit cum illorum principe Antichristo, plurimum tamen Christo, ex Aegypto redeunti, negocii exhibent, eoque rem adduxere, ut (quae summa certissimaque Christiano spes est) nihil hac in re ab homine quoquam expectari possit.” Antoine Papillon to Zwingli, 7 October 1524, ZW 8, no. 346, 221–225; Herminjard 1, no. 125, 294–298. “Interim nihilo secius suae domino reliquiae salvae sunt, indiesque credentium numerus augetur, qui pro se quisque, quoad licet, Christi negocium promovent in omnesque occasiones intenti (qua fenestra aperitur), sacrum hoc incendium vibrant quamque possunt latissime spargunt.” ZW 8, 223–224. 159 See chapter 5 at note 66.

310

chapter seven – from meaux to madrid

Thus they admonished the laity to pray that their persecutors would be enlightened by the Holy Spirit. Did then the Meaux group ‘lose control’ of the lay groups whom they had animated? Lefèvre had certainly warned them not to cause scandal when instructing fellow laypersons.160 Though this message of restraint was repeated in other books and from the pulpit, certain lay persons did risk offending some in order to edify others by destroying the physical supports and processions, which sustained the cult of the saints, that of Mary in particular. Roussel, however, does not seem to have fundamentally disapproved of Le Clerc’s goals, though he may well have deemed his means to be rash. Lefèvre too had made critical remarks about the church and its cult of the saints in his Psalms arguments and elsewhere. If the Meaux group did lose control over some of the laity (and those few are the only ones who register in the sources, not all the ones Lefèvre claimed were avid for the gospel), that loss did not result in some hydra-headed beast of many heresies. Rather, most lay people seems to have been good students of the Meaux group’s doctrine, but some were bad disciples of their strategic restraint, for they attacked precisely the images, practices, and traditions that had been held up to them in the teachings of the Meaux group as aberrations of the pure cult. While Lefèvre and Roussel could dream of a national church renewed according to their understanding of true doctrine, realistically they, like Coct and Papillon, recognized that this possibility was remote, not for lack of enthusiasm from the laity when appropriately instructed but because of impediments thrown up by authorities to such instruction. Thus, while lauding and admiring the heroics in Germany, they accepted that France might be passed over in God’s inscrutable will. They were prepared to accept persecution and failure because they held a distinctive notion about how the Spirit worked in the world. In responding to Farel’s imprecations to be bolder, Roussel told him to moderate his zeal, asking:

160 “Et ne debvez point semer les marguerites celestes, se [si] intelligence vous est donnee, se [si] ce n’est en exhortant l’ung l’autre à aymer dieu (là git la vie chrestienne qui est vie spirituelle et celeste et non point charnelle et terrienne), et principalement es lieux et aux personnes ou povez seulement edifier et nul offenser.” Lefèvre to reader, 6 November 1523, preface to second installment of the New Testament, Eugene F. Rice, Jr., ed., The Prefatory Epistles of Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples and Related Texts (New York: Columbia University Press, 1972), no. 138, 457–468, 446; cf. Herminjard 1, no. 79, 159–169.

the network knits together, –

311

What is it to you if God decides to let an abundant harvest rot in the fields of France? . . . Faith does not complain about the inscrutable will of God but suspends judgment and patiently waits for God’s work to unfold.161

Charles Schmidt dubbed this approach to church renewal “mystical quietism,” considering it to be imbued with a regrettable pacifism or fatalism.162 Yet if network members were resigned to accept whatever happened as God’s will, Roussel also protested to Farel that he, at least, would not temporize in the face of persecution, as some of their confreres advised. Nor, on the other hand, he gives note, would he incite scandals that he deemed to be counterproductive to the spread of their message.163 Roussel realized that he and others lacked the courage to proclaim the gospel as boldly as he agreed with Farel it should be. He freely admitted that he feared for his life and could not willingly embrace the martyr’s crown, begging Farel, Zwingli, and Oecolampadius to encourage him to be bolder with their prayers. But lack of courage was not the sole reason he would not follow all of Farel’s fervent advice. Roussel and the others in the network held more limited views than Farel about what was permissible and productive in promoting God’s word. Although cowed by persecution, they were not immobilized by fear, only prudent and crafty; they were certainly calculating, but not

161 Continuing their conversation about true ministry and the ‘harvest of souls’ to be expected in France, Roussel responded to Farel’s evidently harsh criticisms: “Perire messem, nec parvam, Domino, ob inopiam demetentium, doles; sed non inde unquam consulendum, ut non vocatus se ingerat isti operae. Deinde, quid tua, si sic velit agantur res dominus messis, qui, in motum oculi, sine tua sollicitudine, multo copiosiorem fructum colligere potest? Si sua perire velit, quid ad te?—Dicis: ‘Ad id me adigit charitas, quae proximi saluti consulit.’—Sed vide, ne reclamet fides, quae divinae voluntati cuncta subiicit, quae, incomprehensibilium iudiciorum Dei abyssos subingrediens, haeret, suspendit iudicium, ac patienter expectat opus Dei. Stata semel credit esse omnia, ut prepropere non sit quicquam agendum attentandumve; et, ut voluntati Ipsius nihil posse resistere asserit, ita, avertente Ipso manum, ne esse ut quem laborare conveniat.” Roussel to Farel, 24 August 1524, Herminjard 1, no. 117, 272–273. 162 Charles Schmidt, “Le mysticisme quiétiste en France au début de la Réformation sous François Ier: G. Roussel,” BSHPF 6 (1858), 449–464. 163 “Ne memorem, amicos cum quibus scis me versari [Herminjard suggests Lefèvre and Vatable], continuo causari: ‘necdum venisse tempus commodum, ac frustra conseri manus cum portis Inferi, priusquam Evangelium latius sparsum fuerit, priusquam altius infixum sit mortalium animis!’ Quorum sententiae non subscribo equidem, sed mihi contra videtur tunc minus opus fore conflicationibus, sed, si quando commode, jam praecipue cum deducenda plebs annutat, cum, a vera luce in tenebras olim ablegata, in eam unde exciderat revocanda sit lucem. . . . Quantum possit oratio firmandis animis adversus hostes Verbi, fidem nobis fecerunt apostoli: quibus, in hoc orantibus Deum, motus sit locus in quo essent, nempe in expressione impetratae Dei quam postulassent [gratiae].” Roussel to Farel, 24 August 1524, Herminjard 1, no. 117, 271–272.

312

chapter seven – from meaux to madrid

unprincipled. They covered their flanks when preaching or publishing books while waiting for freer days. The network members’ hope in a brighter future was not unfounded, for, as they rejoiced time and again, Marguerite, “the most evangelical person in all of France,” was protecting and championing them.164 They could reasonably expect that she might succeed in convincing the king to support them should his hands ever become free from political entanglements. Many members reported during 1524–1525 that they would have suffered death except for her intervention. Other evidence suggests that Marguerite took an active interest in managing the network’s whole program. At the end of 1524, reminiscent of Lefèvre’s report of having been guided by friends at court to dedicate his commentary on the Gospels to Chancellor Duprat and Antoine Papillon’s request that Zwingli direct his work to Louise of Savoy, Marguerite had word sent to François Lambert that he should desist from dedicating any more books to Francis I since they were only alienating him.165 Nevertheless, friends, meaning the group around Marguerite at Lyon, gratified Lambert with 20 écus.166 Far from bristling under this reproach, Lambert rejoiced at the payment and never again did he dedicate a work to Francis I. 164 Sébiville asserted about Marguerite “Il n’y a point aujourdui en France plus évangélicque que la Dame d’Alençon.” Herminjard 1, no. 132, 315–316. Nicolas Le Sueur, Roussel, Pierre Toussain, and Antoine Papillon all sang her praises as their fully committed and powerful patron. See Herminjard 1, nos. 102, 104, 125, 130, 131, 153, and 178. 165 “Aussy escripvez à François Lambert, qu’il désiste d’éscirpre je ne scé quelles sottes lettres et livres qu’il escript à ceulx de Mets et aultres, au grant détriment de la Parrole de Dieu. Parturit, ut audio, libellum de vocatione sua per sortem, et nescio quae alia ridicula. Item faciunt se vocari Apostolos, Evangelistas et Episcopos, et je ne scè quelz aultres titres plus plain[s] d’arrogance que de science. Nostre frère le chevallier Coctus m’a promys qu’il luy en escripveroit bien égrement. Jehan Va[u]gry m’a dit que Madame d’Alençon luy avoit fais dire qu’il n’escripva plus ny au Roy ny à aultres [Lambert had written three times to Francis I, in May and August 1524] Dieu luy doint grâce de dire et escripre seulement ce qui est nécessaire aux povres âmes, et à sa paix!” Pierre Toussain to Guillaume Farel, from Basel to Montbéliard, 17 December 1524, Herminjard 1, no. 131, 312–313. 166 “Paupertatem multam sustinemus; nam omnia carissima, et obruor ego debitis multis: fratres aulici, et forsan tu cum illis, miserunt mihi aureos solares viginti; nihil opportunius habui unquam. In omnibus benedictum nomen Domini, qui juvit nos, et potens est nos liberos facere a tam extrema paupertate! Gratias ago omnibus, qui dederunt et juverunt paupertatem meam.” François Lambert to Cornelius Agrippa von Nettesheim, from Strasbourg to [Lyon], 31 December 1524, Herminjard 1, no. 133, 317. The money had come along with information about the situation in France in a letter from Antoine Papillon, indicating that Marguerite lay behind both the warning and the money to Lambert. “Denique eruditissimus Papilio in suis literis, salutem ad me ex tuo nomie scripsit. Gavisa est vehementissime tota ecclesia sanctorum qui apud

the network knits together, –

313

Similarly, in 1524, after Antoine Papillon translated Luther’s De votis monasticis iudicium for her, Marguerite rewarded him with a place in the dauphin’s household.167 In that same year the conservative writer Jean Gacy put the public on guard against such doings: “What will I say about certain ladies, who . . . to satisfy their folly have had books by Luther rendered from Latin into French?”168 Conservatives said it often and pointedly: women were having Luther’s works translated, and on their shoulders rested the blame for the spread of heresy in the realm. Marguerite’s bold patronage of Briçonnet’s band and their larger fraternal alliance clearly endangered her reputation. When Francis I fell

nos sunt, audientes fructum Verbi apud aulicos, itidem apud Galliam ferè omnem.” ibid., 316. 167 “Il ne j [y] a eu deulx grans personnaiges à Grenoble, le temps du Roi estant à Lyon [August 1524]. L’ung se appelle Anthonius Papilio, le premier de France bien sachant l’Évangille, et en langue latine trés-éléguant. Il a translaté le traictié De votis monasiticis à Madame d’Alençon, seur du Roy, de quoy il a eu beaucoup d’affaires avecques celle vermine parrhisienne. Toutefois ladicte dame l’a bien récompensé, car elle l’a fait maistre premier des Requestes du Daulphin, et si est du grant conseil.” Sébiville to Anémond de Coct, from Grenoble to Zurich, 28 December 1524, Herminjard 1, no. 132, 314. W. G. Moore raises the doubt whether this passage really indicates anything more than that Papillon transferred—which is one of the possible meanings of “translater”— either the original Latin or a translation of De votis monasticis iudicium to Marguerite. See his La Réforme allemande et la littérature française: Recherches sur la notoriété de Luther en France, Publications de la Faculté des Lettres de l’Université de Strasbourg 52, (Strasbourg: Publication de la Faculté des Lettres, 1930), 104–105. Moore’s doubt is answered by the context: Sébiville writes that Papillon was a good Latinist, an important requirement for a would-be translator, and that he received the reward of a place in the dauphin’s household for the translation. This, of course, is a far greater recompense than the mere gift of a book would warrant, but is one fully in keeping with the dedication of a work he had translated for her. See further Erasmus’s warning to Berquin about his translating activities in, which he holds up the sudden death of Papillon—Erasmus strongly suspected that he was poisoned—as a warning. Allen 6, no. 1599, 150–151. Interestingly, Berquin was caught with a manuscript in 1526 in which he claims that he or another, it is not clear, had translated Luther’s De votis monasticis iudicium in order to disseminate it widely to the public: “Libellus, cujus titulus est: Ludovici a Berquin adversus calumnias quorumdam Epistolas Apologetica ad amicum, quia aperte damnatam Lutheri doctrinam probat & tuetur, sacrae Religionis vota execratur & subsannat & autorem transtulisse impiissimum Libellum illum Lutheri de votis Monasticis inscriptum docet, ut Libelli illius venenum in plebeios diffunderet.” Emphasis added. D’Argentré, Collectio judiciorum 2, pt. 1, 41. This passage points to a possible connection between Papillon and Berquin, which is unknown from other sources but not surprising given their common profile as protégés of Marguerite. 168 “Que dirai je d’aulcunes dames / Cuydans verite surmonter / Pourtans grand prejudice aux ames / Pour leur folie contenter / Les livres Luther translater / Ont faict en francoys du latin / Qui prend cop lieve trop matin.” Gacy, Trialogue (1524), g3v. Cf. chapter 6, note 159, for his attack on women led astray by Lutheran preachers.

314

chapter seven – from meaux to madrid

captive, conservatives seized the occasion to reproach the royal family for its misdeeds, most prominently for fomenting heresy. In 1525, Marguerite faced the enormous challenge of simultaneously preserving her brother, her network, and her reputation.

CHAPTER EIGHT

RESURRECTING KING AND REFORM, 15251530

Francis I’s captivity was among the most dramatic as well as self-consciously dramatized episodes in Marguerite’s life. When her brother was at the lowest point of his reign and her network was being crushed, Marguerite employed her considerable creativity and guile to ‘resurrect’ them both. Extending her metaphor, one might say that after Francis I returned to the kingdom, evangelicals still had to wait another four years for their Pentecost. Only when the king’s children were ransomed in 1530 did they receive Marguerite’s blessing to pursue the evangelical cause more openly.

The King in Captivity and Reform in Exile, 1525–1526 The captivity of Francis I gravely endangered the royal regime and forced it to mature politically. In foreign affairs, the crown had no alternatives and so was required to hone its crude diplomatic skills. On the home front, it had to face down the defiance of the Parlement of Paris, which voiced years of mounting discontent with Francis’s rule. In response to the first challenge, the crown quickly became adept at forming and running a multi-party alliance scheme to check Charles V’s military advantage. So, too, the crown effectively neutralized its domestic critics by making empty promises and by sacrificing on the altar of orthodoxy the heretics whom conservatives claimed had provoked God’s wrath. Pavia exhausted France’s military options against the Hapsburg lands and England, and, to turn Karl von Clausewitz’s dictum on its head, they turned to diplomacy as a form of war by other means. On the eve of the Valois-Hapsburg clash, although France had begun its long cultural and political tutelage under Italian masters, it was not yet skilled in the arts of the courtier or the ambassador.1 At the end of the 1510s,

1

Garret Mattingly argues cogently that, until the 1520s, compared with the English or Spanish, the French were unskilled in diplomacy and had an underdeveloped

316

chapter eight

France’s diplomatic corps remained underdeveloped and was little used either to prevent war or to serve French strategy during it.2 After the start of hostilities, Francis I only had resident ambassadors in Venice, Rome, and the Swiss cantons. In English affairs, Francis I’s personal détente at the sensational Field of the Cloth of Gold (June 1520) failed to prevent Henry VIII from secretly joining the emperor in 1521.3 A flurry of envoys sent to the German princes in 1518–1519 ended after Francis lost his bid for the imperial crown. Although Charles V recognized that the princes of the Empire might serve as a French fifth column with the advent of the Luther affair, Francis did not see their

ambassadorial corps. The latter assertion is certainly true, for the number of resident ambassadors and envoys sent from and to France increases markedly after 1525. See Garret Mattingly, Renaissance Diplomacy (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1955; repr. Baltimore: Penguin, 1964), 148–151; CAF 9, passim. Francis I had an early and abiding interest in Baldessare Castiglione’s The Book of the Courtier (Il libro del corteggiano), which when published in 1528 did not contain a flattering passage that the king had earlier inspired the author to put in. The king’s reader, Jacques Colin, translated this work for him in 1529. See Knecht, Renaissance Warrior, 6, 8, and 473. 2 Mattingly also argues that the election of Charles V caused a fundamental, destabilizing shift in the political landscape of Europe by reducing the number of major powers from four (the Hapsburg lands, Spain, France, and England) to three (the Hapsburg lands now including Spain, France, and England), upsetting the “multiple balance of power” envisioned by Cardinal Wolsey in the Treaty of London (4 October 1518). On the wrong side of this imbalance, France was in desperate need of the advantages that diplomacy could afford against its more powerful Hapsburg rival and woefully ill-equipped to secure them. Mattingly, Renaissance Diplomacy, 144–148. Scholars are agreed that the Valois-Hapsburg rivalry dominated international relations in Western European during the first half of the sixteenth century. Recent interpreters, however, describe this battle as principally a dynastic fight for preponderance in Italy, rejecting an older interpretation that accepted early sixteenth-century rhetoric (Charles V as the new Charlemagne, etc.) that portrayed Charles as seeking to encircle France and achieve hegemony (monarchie or monarchia) over Western Europe. The following draws on Knecht, Renaissance Warrior, chapters 8, 10, and 11, and Richard Bonney, The European Dynastic States, 1494–1660, The Short Oxford History of the Modern World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), 79–130, esp. 79–80, 99–104, and 109–110. For the older view, see H. G. Koenigsberger and George L. Mosse, chapter on “Empires” in idem, Europe in the Sixteenth Century (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1968), 174–211, esp. 180–182. 3 France’s exchange of resident ambassadors with England ceased in June 1522, when England joined with the Hapsburgs; see CAF 9, 17–21, 93–96. While at war with England, the French sent three envoys to Henry VIII from June 1524 to April 1525 to seek peace. The permanent French mission to England then recommenced in June 1525. Although Mattingly incorrectly asserts that France had no representatives in England before the war, he is certainly correct that they did little to forestall England from siding with the emperor.

resurrecting king and reform, –

317

potential, accrediting no further ambassadors to the German princes until the formation of the Schmalkaldic League in 1531.4 After Pavia, the regent, Louise of Savoy, sent waves of envoys and ambassadors to England, the Swiss cantons, the pope, and various Italian powers. Notably, she also established secret contact with the Grand Turk, inaugurating France’s historic ties to the Ottoman Empire. She was slow to treat with Charles V, trying first to enlist the support of his aunt Margaret of Austria (Savoy), regent of the Low Countries. Though rebuffed there, French overtures to states in Italy wishing to check the emperor’s power eventually led to the establishment of the League of Cognac in 1526. Because Henry VIII was upset with Charles V for not sharing the spoils of his victory over Francis, by the summer of 1525 he eagerly sought to make peace with the French and gain what advantages he might from them. After France and England signed the Treaty of the More (30 August 1525),5 Louise of Savoy and Chancellor Duprat followed Cardinal Wolsey’s advice during their final negotiations with Charles. In the end, France’s web of alliances pressured Charles V enough to convince him to release Francis in exchange for his sons, rather than hold him until the fulfillment of the Treaty of Madrid. Meanwhile on the home front, news of Pavia greatly distressed the French and incited fears of imminent invasion, for the northern frontier was dangerously exposed. At first, Henry VIII did indeed propose to Charles V that they carve up France between them. French dread,

4

Charles V’s representatives at the Calais Peace conference (August 1521) accused Francis I of trying to use the Lutheran heretics to overthrown him at the Diet of Worms: “Quotiens et conatus est Gallus, dum Imperii comitia Wormatiae haberemus, . . . Pestilentissimum etiam Lutheranum virus fovere variisque artibus diffundere non destitit, veluti hac via ad novos summos Pontifices, ad novos Caesares creandos, ad certam christiani orbis ruinam parandam et implacabiles tempestates excitandas aditus patefieri videretur.” Jean de Barrillon, Journal de Jean de Barrillon: Secrétaire du Chancelier Duprat 1515–1521, 2 vols., ed. Pierre de Vaissière (Paris: Renouard, 1897 & 1899), 2, 226–238; 231. Chancellor Duprat’s response makes no reply to this charge; ibid., 2, 238–249, esp. 247. Nor is there any other evidence to substantiate Charles V’s charge. During 1518–1519, Francis sent at least 17 different diplomatic missions to “Allemagne” involving 25 ambassadors. From 1520–1530, only three ambassadors are known to have gone to “Germany.” The first, Hans Temperan, was active at Bern in May 1523. He does not seem to have had any dealing outside the Swiss cantons. The second, Antoine de L’Apostolle, sr. de Margency, was sent to the duke of Guelders October 1528, thus was not involved with any of the other principal powers of the Empire. On the third, Louis de Rabodanges, who was accredited to see Charles V at the Diet of Augsburg, see below. From 1531 onwards, Francis sent a steady stream of ambassadors to the German princes and diets. See CAF 9, 6–8. 5 Ordonnances 4, no. 394, 92–109.

318

chapter eight

which deepened as the Peasants’ War spread into Lorraine, was soon quelled when the duke of Lorraine savagely crushed the ill-equipped commoners and it became plain that Charles V and Henry VIII would not invade. Ironically, from the crown’s perspective, the greatest threat was internal. With the regency government reeling under the blow of Francis’s captivity, the Parlement of Paris, voicing the views of a large portion of the third estate, seized the opportunity to confront the crown with the many grievances that had accrued during the first ten years of Francis’s rule.6 On 20 March, a few days after news of Pavia reached Paris, the Parlement of Paris signaled its intentions by freeing from jail several printers of anti-Royalist tracts and the preacher Jean [Guillaume] Josse who had slandered the royal regime for its toleration of heretics.7 That same day, President Briçonnet, the brother of Guillaume, declared in parlement that “the calamities suffered in this Realm are due to the heresies and blasphemies spreading throughout the Realm.” That day the parlement elevated the ad hoc tribunal commissioned to hear Meigret’s case into a full inquisitorial court.8 Then, on 10 April, the parlement submitted its own set of ransom demands to the regent at Lyon. In exchange for its continued cooperation, the parlement wanted her to address a remonstrance of thirty-two articles.9 Four days later, the Paris City Council, acting in concert with parlement, submitted its demands.10

6

For instance, the chronicler Versoris mentioned excessive royal taxation in November 1521, October 1522, and September 1524, see Fagniez, Versoris, no. 57, 20–21, no. 88, 25, and no. 186, 58; as did Pierre Driart, see Driart, 88. See further Charles Terrasse, François Ier: Le Roi et le règne, 3 vols. (Paris: Grasset, 1943–1970), vol. 1, 313–316; and Knecht, Renaissance Warrior, 228–236. 7 Lalanne, Bourgeois, 233–234. 8 “20 Mars 1524 [1525 n.s.]. Les calamités survenues en ce Royaume sont attribuées aux hérésies blasphèmes ledit Président Briçonnet parlant. Le même jour sur le rapport fait à la cour de ce que dessus arrêt d’icelle pour republier l’ordonnance de Louis IIe cidevant lue et publiée et bailler vicariat par l’evêque de Paris et un Président de Enquêtes un conseiller et deux Docteurs pour faire le procès aux entassés à doctrine de Luther et autres hérésies.” BPF MS 140, fol. 1r, copy of registers of the Parlement of Paris. 9 10 April 1525: “Les articles en forme de remonstrance envoyer par la cour a Madame mere du Roy Regente en France.” BnF Clairambault 324, fols. 269r–273r; cf. BPF MS 140, fol. 2r. Knecht mentions these remonstrances, basing his analysis upon entries in the registers of the Parlement of Paris, in Renaissance Warrior, 232. 10 Mentioned in a report on 10 May by the representatives of the Paris City Council about their meetings with Louise on 14 April and after, in A. Le Roux de Lincy, ed., Procès-verbal des délibérations tenues à l’Hôtel de Ville de Paris pendant la captivité de François Ier (Paris: Firmin Didot, 1844), 14–15.

resurrecting king and reform, –

319

The parlement’s protest concerned four principal matters: the crown’s abrogation of freedom of the Gallican church, its abuse of the judicial system, the crimes committed by the royal army, and the excessive burden of royal taxation.11 In chief, the parlement asked the regent to abolish the Concordat of Bologna and restore the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges (art. 2); to cease evoking benefice suits from the parlement to the king’s Grand Conseil (art. 5); to appoint no more laymen to clerical offices in the parlement (art. 10); to stop the king’s army from afflicting the people (arts. 17–22); and to refrain from alienating crown lands, imposing new taxes, or increasing the taille (arts. 23–29). The demands of the Paris City Council similarly concerned taxes and pillaging by the royal army.12 Both bodies coupled their demands with an urgent appeal to Louise to take vigorous action against heresy. The parlement blamed the “evils that have welled up in the church” on the lack of free (i.e., capitular) elections under the Concordat, which had prevented sound pastors from being selected and had enabled heresy to spread.13 The city council of Paris asked “her to see to it that the Lutherans are chased from the realm because their errors have enraged God against us.”14 In response, Louise “ruled as if they [the remonstrances] had never existed”15 in administrative and judicial matters. For that, she encountered stiff resistance from parlement throughout her regency, especially 11 In April 1525, “Louise avoit veu à part les Instructions envoyées par la Court, qu’elle avoit divisé en quatre poincts en ce qui concerne l’Estat et liberté de l’Eglise, de la Justice, de la Gendarmerie, soullagement du peuple et des finances;” in “Poursuites du Parlement pour l’extirpation des heresies de Luther. Extraict des registres de Parlement,” BnF Clairambault 324, fol. 239r. 12 The Paris City Council protested chiefly against a 100,000 écus extraordinary tax on them and the pillaging of royal troops in the Paris region. Le Roux de Lincy, Procès-verbal des délibérations tenues à l’Hôtel de Ville de Paris, 15–16. 13 Although none of the parlement’s articles specifically accuse the crown of supporting heretics, it cites the spread of the “Lutheran” threat as the chief justification for its demands. The preamble of the remonstrance states that the welfare of the king and realm, which were obviously suffering, rests upon a free church and the correct exercise of justice. They then pass immediately in articles two (the first article is a pro-forma request for prayers for the king and realm) and five to blaming the present calamities—including the king’s capture—on the spread of ‘evils in the church’ caused by the unchecked spread of heresy, the Concordat, and evocation of benefice cases to the Grand Conseil. BnF Clairambault 324, fols. 269r–273r. 14 “. . . elle voulist donner ordre que les Luteryens soyent debouttez, car ce sont erreurs dont Dieu se courrouce.” Le Roux de Lincy, Procès-verbal des délibérations tenues à l’Hôtel de Ville de Paris, 16. 15 For Louise’s continuing fight with the parlement during the regency, see Knecht, Renaissance Warrior, 232–236.

320

chapter eight

against her chief advisor, Chancellor Duprat, but never open rebellion.16 Louise refused to revoke the Concordat or proceed with other administrative changes until Francis’s return, but she threw the parlement a bone: she authorized the pursuit of heretics.17 Over the following year, Louise continued to sacrifice the ‘Lutherans’ as expiation for the calamities in the realm.18 Her sanction gave conservatives a free hand to mount the investigations that led to the mass indictment of the Meaux group in October 1525 and Berquin’s arrest in January 1526.

16 Versoris wrote a long account of the report given in Paris on 10 May 1525 by the representatives of the Parlement and City Council of Paris about their meetings with the regent. She sidelined their complaints and asked them for more funds to raise an army for the defense of the realm, a response which, “contenta quelque peu [barred in the MS] ceulx de Paris.” Fagniez, Versoris, no. 232, 72–73. 17 In letters to President de Selve and councillors Verjus and Prévost of the parlement, Louise promised “. . . au regard des autres articles ausquels Elle peult pourvoir et faire exécuter, comme l’extirpation de la secte et heresie de Luther, venalité d’offices de Judicature, evocatons, commissions extraordinaires, desordres de la gendarmerie et discipline militaire, oppression de peuples, desrobemens de finances, desquisement d’acquis, alienation de Domaine, immensité de dons plus a plain specifiés esd. instructions, Elle est deliberée y donner provision pour temps passé et advenir, et faire cesser telles voyes et abus, et deffendre a Mr. Le Chancellier [Duprat] de non user, ne sceller evocations sinon ez cas de l’ordonnaces et à Madame supplié et escript à nostre St. Pere affin d’envoyer rescript pour informer et proceder contre les coupables et faulteurs des Erreurs de Luther conformément, et selon lesd. instruction, lesquelles elle nous a ordonnées porter à Mr. Le Tresorier Robertet, pour estre gardées secretement . . .” Emphasis added. April 1525, “Poursuites du Parlement pour l’extirpation des hérésies de Luther. Extrait des registres de Parlement.” BnF Clairambault 324, fol. 239r. Similarly, Louise promised to the Paris City Council “qu’elle a délibéré d’extirper tous erreurs et Luthériens.” Le Roux de Lincy, Procès-verbal des délibérations tenues à l’Hôtel de Ville de Paris, 16. 18 On 10 June 1525, the parlement registered letters from the regent authorizing the execution of the papal bull establishing the special heresy commission, the juges délégués. See Ordonnances 4, no. 387, 72–73: “Lettres de la Régente, ordonnant l’exécution d’une bulle du Pape, du 17 Mai 1525, relative aux poursuites à exercer contre les Luthériens (10 June 1525).” On 14 February 1525, just before Pavia, Louise had reissued her decree of 25 September 1523 against blasphemers, whom she blamed for having “provoqué l’ire de Dieu nostre createur sur ses royaume, pays et seigneuries, veu les guerres, mortalitez et famynes qui ont esté et sont de present, a nostre tresgrant degret [sic], ennuy et desplaisir.” Ibid., no. 384, 64–66. By December, the court had been forced to draw a stronger distinction between blasphemers and heretics. The former were separated from the more pernicious heretics, as in the edict authorizing prisoners condemned to death or heavy corporal punishment, to be handed over to the galleys, including “. . . larrons, pillars, meurdriers, regnyeurs et blaphemateurs de nom de Dieu, et de sa glorieuse Mere, joueurs de cartes et de detz, et autres vaccabonds oysifz, . . .” but not “. . . ceulx qui auroient commis heresie, crime de leze magesté, ou autres grans et enormes cas, . . .” ibid., no. 406, 154–165; 155.

resurrecting king and reform, –

321

Marguerite’s Diplomatic Skill Marguerite thus faced a twofold challenge during her brother’s captivity: to save him as well as her religious brethren. She was well prepared for the role she would play in preserving them both. Throughout the first phase of the Valois-Hapsburg war she had been a leading figure at court, directing military affairs, supervising domestic government, and negotiating with foreign powers. When Louise was incapacitated by recurring attacks of gout, Marguerite took her place at court.19 She helped to oversee military operations, directing men and money to the most urgent trouble spots on France’s menaced frontiers.20 When disbanded soldiers were ravaging the countryside in 1523, Marguerite coordinated her husband and Anne de Montmorency’s efforts to mop them up.21 In order to keep her brother’s armies in good fighting order, she freed Francis’s chief officers from domestic entanglements.22 Marguerite paid particular attention to Anne de Montmorency, Francis’s boyhood friend and closest companion. When Montmorency was away from court, she sent him regular reports about the health of the royal 19

See Marguerite’s letters: Génin 1, no. 7, 153–155; the summary of BnF F.fr. 3024, fol. 129 in Génin 1, 419; and Génin 2, no. 2, 53 (Jourda, Répertoire, nos. 102, 186, and 303). 20 Thus, at the end of the first summer campaign of the war, Gaspard de Coligny, Maréchal de Châtillon, asked Marguerite to prevent the king from sending more troops to the Spanish front near Bayonne. Since the fighting season was almost over, the expense of raising these troops would be wasted; further fortifications would suffice. Letter mentioned in another letter from “M. de Chastillon [Gaspard de Coligny]” to “M. Le Tresorier” [Robertet], 3 August 1521 BnF Clairambault 319, fol. 180 (see Saulnier 1977, no. 22.1 [Jourda, Répertoire, no. 21]). Similarly, on 16 June 1523 she wrote to Montmorency informing him that funds were on the way to resupply Thérouanne, which was being besieged. Marguerite’s letter went with others from court announcing the same news. Génin 1, no. 50, 213–214 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 109). 21 In March 1523, Marguerite informed Anne de Montmorency that she had instructed her husband to drive the rogue troops towards him in Anjou and Maine in order to catch them in a pincer movement. Génin 1, no. 7, 153–155 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 102). Cf. chapter 6, the problem of rogue troops prompted a royal decree 25 September 1523, “Ordonnance contre les aventuriers, pillards chefs de bande et Blaphémateurs,” Ordonnances 3, no. 359, 298–304. 22 For instance, in May and August 1524 she helped to manage the Sr. de Lorges suit at parlement so that he could rally to the troop muster in the south of France. Uncatalogued letters: Clémencet, Parlement, no. 1110, 31 May 1524, Marguerite to the Parlement of Paris; Clémencet, Parlement, no. 1114, 9 August 1524, Marguerite to the Parlement of Paris. The case had something to do with the bailliage of Orléans, whose bailli, Jacques Groslot, was in her entourage. See chapter 7, note 25. The sr. de Lorges did join the royal army and was listed among the major French captains captured at Pavia. See Driart, 103.

322

chapter eight

family, apprised him of the court’s movements, praised his conduct while on campaign or hiring mercenaries in Switzerland, assured him of the royal family’s favor, and attempted to arrange an advantageous marriage for him.23 In short, she and Louise of Savoy were helping to manage his rising star, ensuring that one of Francis I’s best generals remained devoted even after the defection of Bourbon. In foreign affairs, Marguerite had earlier seconded Francis’s limping diplomacy as far as it went. From 1518 to 1521, she helped to cultivate good relations with Henry VIII. She presided in place of Queen Claude at the Field of the Cloth of Gold. A month later, as Cardinal Wolsey’s “daughter by adoption,” she sent greetings to Henry VIII’s chief advisor, encouraging him to keep the pledges that the English had made.24 The following summer, while Wolsey was supposedly brokering peace but actually forming a secret alliance with the emperor, Marguerite played out a farce at court with the English ambassador, Fitzwilliam. Although powerless to do anything about it, Marguerite recognized the disjunction between the rhetoric and réal politique of English policy. She tried to maintain the moral high ground in preparation for the coming conflict. Fitzwilliam reported that: I was with the king’s sister, who told me many of the Pope’s acts, which, if true, are little to his honor. She said twice or thrice that it was a strange thing the house of France ever used a plain way without dissimulation, and yet all princes were glad to hear of their loss [of Milan]. I said the king was not glad of the loss or dishonor of Francis; and she said, laughing, “If so, there is one, but no more.” I see they do not trust England in the least, but give us good words for fear.25

A month later, while Machiavellian negotiations took place at Calais, Marguerite and Fitzwilliam traded accusations of breaking faith. He complained that the French were preparing to send the duke of Albany, pretender to the Scottish crown, home to stir up trouble for the English. In turn, Marguerite accused Henry VIII of dealing falsely:

23 See, for instance, Saulnier 1977, 118.2 and Jourda, Répertoire, nos. 114, 138, 158, 171, 177, 186, 187, 197, 199, 200, and 202. 24 Étienne Poncher, archbishop of Sens, to Cardinal Wolsey, 13 July 1520, Letters and Papers 3, no. 912, 329–330. 25 Summary of Fitzwilliam’s letter to [Wolsey], 2 August 1521, Letters and Papers 3, no. 1456, 595–597. Wolsey had offered to arbitrate peace negotiations but was secretly preparing to sign an offensive treaty with the emperor, which he did at Bruges on 23 August 1521. See Knecht, Renaissance Warrior, 178–179.

resurrecting king and reform, –

323

Do you not see that the Cardinal [Wolsey] is ever negotiating peace, almost to the day of battle? Our enemies are attacking, and at Ardres, which Francis did not fortify at your master’s request, Englishmen were present when it was taken and helped to raze it. What say you to that? And as for trust, that is past. The king will make himself strong, and trust in God.26

As Fitzwilliam admitted to Wolsey, he did not know whether English forces had been at Ardres, but he had sworn to Marguerite on his honor as a gentleman that Henry VIII had not sanctioned its sacking. Marguerite then: began to speak sweetly, saying that she believed him [Henry VIII] to be honest, and would continue do so until she saw otherwise, after which she would never trust man again.

Fitzwilliam, a childhood companion of Henry VIII, was offended by this exchange and blustered to Wolsey: I assure your grace this was a thing devised by my Lady [Louise of Savoy], for she stood so near that she might hear every word. So I pray and beseech your grace to consider I am a young man . . . and have a fiery temper; and if a man should ever speak to me as she [Marguerite] did, which impugned the king’s honor and yours so mightily, I fear that I would have made him such an answer, that peradventure would have gone that the [king’s] grace would not have been contented. . . . I beseech you grace to rid me hence, if it be the king’s pleasure . . . for though the French king and my Lady [Louise of Savoy] speak fairly with their mouths, I perceive well enough what they think in their hearts.

Brave words, but Fitzwilliam was clearly out of his league. He had been kept in the dark by Wolsey about Henry VIII’s real plans and had no inkling that Marguerite’s charges might be true or what she was doing in voicing them. Marguerite and Louise had discerned the direction of English policy. Fitzwilliam was naïve. Their chastisement of Henry VIII for breaking the chivalric code of honor so ruffled his feathers that he asked to be relieved of his duties lest he committed some outrage. If he did not suspect it of his own masters, he at least saw that Marguerite could dissimulate with fair words. Without giving overt insult, Marguerite served notice to Wolsey through Fitzwilliam that, while 26

We have modernized spelling, punctuation, as well as syntax where needed, and removed the brackets supplied by editors around words where the original manuscript is damaged, when their reading seems correct. Fitzwilliam to Wolsey, 15 September 1521, Letters and Papers 3, no. 1581, 658–660, for this and the following quotes.

324

chapter eight

she desired France and England to remain friends, the French court knew what the English were doing behind the scenes and were ready, “making themselves strong and trusting in God,” to do battle. After the English took up arms against the French in 1522, the French court focused its diplomacy on relations with the pope: the last front where some advantage might be gained. Surprisingly, the new pope, Adrian VI, adopted a neutral stance during the beginning of his pontificate. He wrote to Marguerite requesting her aid in ending hostilities. She responded in humble obedience, affirming her desire for peace, yet she derogated nothing from the justice of her brother’s cause, replying that Francis I sought peace at the cost of much gold, a euphemism for the continuing war or perhaps the annates he was allowing French prelates to pay to Rome.27 Paying lip service to Adrian’s wishes, she implicitly seconded Francis I’s threats to cut off the rich flow of funds from the French church, should the pope refuse to help them retake Milan. Adrian spurned Francis’s demands but hesitated to turn against him, lest a chief source of papal revenue dry up and the French king become a champion of Lutheran heresy.28 Only later that summer, when Francis prevented ecclesiastical taxes from going to Rome, did Adrian finally side with Charles. France was then isolated diplomatically until 1524, when the new pope, Clement VII, made overtures to broker peace, sending Gian Matteo Giberti, bishop of Verona, to both Charles V and Francis I. While Francis I was away on campaign, Giberti arrived at the French court in Lyon equipped with letters of recommendation, including one for

27 “Et perche col Re mio fratello Signore, non mi resta luogo di poter far molto; essendo sua Maestà per se stessa assai disposta ad obedire V. Santità, non solo nelle cose della pace, la quale è sempre stata tanto da sua Maestà desiderata, che l’ha con molto oro comprata da quelli, ch’hora lo spendono per farli guerra: ma in qualunque altra cosa, che piacerà a V. Beatitudine comandargli essendo certa, ch’ella per la prudenza, et bontà sua non gli comanderà mai cosa, che sia contro l’honor suo; pregarò Dio, che mi facci degna di poter pregare per la prospera, et lunga vita di V. Santità, dalla quale dipende ogni speranza di quelli, che desiderano la pace, et quiete de’ Christiani: et se a quella piacerà altra cosa comandarmi, mi trouarà sempre tanto pronta ad obedire la, quanto io sono obligata. Et baciando li piedi di V. Santità, a quella humilmente mi raccomando. Da Lione, alli 23 di Giugno. 1522. Di V. Beatitudine obedientiss. figliuola, et humiliss. seruitrice, Madama d’Alanson.” Girolamo Ruscelli, Lettere di principi le quali o si scrivono da principi, o a principi, o ragionano di principi, 3 vols. (Venice: F. Ziletti, 1581), vol. 1, fol. 102v–103r (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 66). Marguerite’s public letter to Adrian VI accompanied one by Louise of Savoy for the same purpose. 28 Knecht quotes a letter from Adrian VI to this effect; Renaissance Warrior, 201.

resurrecting king and reform, –

325

Marguerite among a handful of top courtiers.29 France’s fortunes had taken a radical turn for the better since the special envoy had received his instructions to seek peace. Bourbon’s army had just been turned back from Marseilles and Francis I was on the verge of gaining the upper hand in the war by invading Milan. The French did not want peace; they wanted the pope to sign an offensive treaty with them. In November, at the same time that Marguerite was secretly encouraging ‘heretics’ like d’Arande, Sébiville, and Meigret, she fostered good relations with the pope by making it known that Louise and most of the court participated in the jubilee indulgence accorded by the pope.30 Louise’s arrest of Meigret in December contributed to the same end. Only when Francis had retaken Milan and was besieging Pavia in January and February 1525 did Clement abandon his neutral stance and sign an ill-timed treaty with Francis against Charles V.31

29 Giberti was equipped with letters of credence for a diplomatic sweep through Europe. For the one to Marguerite, dated 30 October 1524, see Jourda, Répertoire, no. 196; Bartolomeo Fontana, ed., Renata di Francia, duchessa di Ferrara, sui documenti dell’archivo estense, del Mediceo, del Gonzaga e dell’Archivio secreto Vaticano, 3 vols. (Rome, 1889–1899), vol. 3, 365–66. Giberti also carried bulls “mandata nostra” from the pope announcing the jubilee indulgence, which was celebrated in France during November and December of 1524. 30 On 18 November [1524], Marguerite informed Anne de Montmorency that Louise and her entourage had gone to the church of Saint-Jean in Saint-Juste near Lyon, “pour faire faire les processions et, dimanche prouchain, recepvoir tous N.S., suivant le jubile ottroye par le pape. Je croy que par de la vous n’en ferez pas moins [in Italy].” Génin 1, no. 21, 171–172 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 197). Shortly after the Mass for the jubilee indulgence was celebrated on Sunday, 20 November 1524, Marguerite told Montmorency that “Madame et la compaignie remonte aujourd’huy à son logis de Saint-Just, après avoir faict les processions générales par ceste ville, où la plus part a receu le sainct sacrement.” Génin 1, no. 23, 173 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 202). Notably, Marguerite does not state that she participated in the jubilee indulgence, an inexplicable lapse if she had done so. The papal jubilee indulgence was celebrated in Paris in December. Participants were instructed to fast on Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday [7, 9, 10 December], say five Pater Nosters and five Ave Marias each day of fasting “tant pour la paix que pour la pestillance,” confess to a priest of their choice, and receive the host on the following Sunday [11 December] “qui fut chose moult aggreable au peuple pour plusieurs causes, et singulièrement pour ce que on en avoit poinct veu d’autelz et que ilz estoient donnez en vraye charité.” Driart, 100. Another chronicler remarked “et en ce faisant [fasting and communing], on gaingoit les pardons semblables à l’an jubilé, qui fut une chouse de dévotion et bien ordonnée.” Cronique du roy Françoys Premier, 43. 31 On 19 February 1525, Giberti reported from the French court to Girolamo Aleandro about the favorable disposition of Louise of Savoy toward Rome, whose children, he reported, where worthy of her. All was well with Franco-papal relations on the eve of Pavia. See Letters and Papers 4, pt. 1, no. 1102, 485.

326

chapter eight

By the time disaster struck at Pavia, Marguerite was already skilled in the diplomatic art of dissimulation. She knew how to play on the codes and gestures of obedience to Rome, religious orthodoxy, and chivalric honor to promote mercenary designs. Before she could put her talents to work in favor of her brother and network, she had to negotiate a deeply troubling, hugely consequential personal crisis: having escaped from the battle of Pavia, Charles d’Alençon dragged himself back to court, where he quickly died in disgrace. Her response to the last days of her first husband provides an important measure of her character and resourcefulness. Charles d’Alençon in Hell at Lyon Within weeks of his return to Lyon, Charles d’Alençon passed away. His death is a dark patch in Marguerite’s biography. The cause of his death, Marguerite reported, was a five-day pleurisy, a painful inflammation of the pleura membrane surrounding the lungs that is accompanied by high fever. Since his demise, however, no one has wanted to say what the sources insinuate. Although he died of natural causes, both he and the Royal Trinity were relieved by his death, some even looked forward to it. Charles had commanded the French rear guard at Pavia. Of the major nobles present, to a man they either died or were captured with their king, including Anne de Montmorency, commander of the vanguard, as well as Charles’s co-commander of the rear guard, Philippe Chabot, sr. de Brion, but not Charles.32 Of the unnamed thousands of foot

32 Martin Du Bellay relates that during the first hours of the battle “. . . la compagnie du duc d’Alençon et du seigneur de Brion avoient deffaict quelque nombre d’Espagnols.” (vol. 1, 353–354). Later he includes d’Alençon’s co-commander of the rearguard, the sr. de Brion, among those taken hostage (vol. 1, 358). Du Bellay never explains how the two were separated. Though he does his best to exculpate d’Alençon, he leaves open the interpretation that the duke turned tail and ran: “Le duc d’Alençon, lequel avoit la conduitte de l’arriere garde, voyant l’armée deffaicte, le Roy pris, et n’y avoir esperance de ressource, par le conseil de ceux qui estoient près de luy, avec si peu qu’il avoit de reste, se retira par dessus le pont qu’avions faict sur le Tesin.” [Addition marginale de la main, semble-t-il, de Martin Du Bellay: “. . . et feist rompre le pont à sa queue, qui fut cause que plusieurs des nostres se cuydans retyrer par ledict pont furent prins ou noyez. Je pense bien que cela ne veinst de son advys, mays de ceulx qui estoient près de sa personne.”] Martin and Guillaume Du Bellay, Mémoires de Martin et Guillaume du Bellay, ed. V.-L. Bourrilly and F. Vindry, 4 vols. (Paris: Renouard, 1908–1919), vol. 1, 356. For an account of the battle, with only the mention that d’Alençon escaped, see Knecht, Renaissance Warrior, 218–225, esp. 224–225.

resurrecting king and reform, –

327

soldiers killed, many were hacked down or drowned when they could not retreat over the bridge that Charles and elements of his rear guard destroyed to cover their flight. During their return journey, this rag tag band was, nevertheless, still capable of sacking French towns, despite the fact that many of the retreating troops were falling ill and dying.33 Yet, Charles must have seemed sound enough when he arrived at Lyon, for a well-informed witness remarked in surprise that Alençon had died almost before it was known that he was ill.34 The visiting magistrates from the Paris City Council were similarly confused about Charles’s illness and date of death, having been led to believe he expired four days later than in fact he did.35 A chronicler at Paris, sympathetic to Charles, whom he considered too kind and too generous to be a great warrior and for that liked him the better, later reported that Charles “took death” (il prins la mort). Death did not take him, he embraced it.36 The Bourgeois de Paris related similarly that Charles died bodily on 11 April but that his spirit had already left him because Louise of Savoy had blamed him, at least in part, for the defeat of her Caesar, as

Nicolas Versoris, a jurist at the Parlement of Paris, who had precise news about the battle (who fought on both sides, who died, who was captured, etc. . .) concluded: “A brief parler toute la fleur et chevalerie de France fust prinse ou morte, qui sera, si Dieu par sa grace, bonté et misericorde n’y remedie, la perte et destruction totalle du reaulme. Apres laquelle deffaicte advenue fut le Roy mené à Pavye en Espagne.” Fagniez, Versoris, no. 218, 67–68. 33 “Milites redeunt ab Italia nudi et famelici; quidam civitatem Dignensem penitus diripuerunt, et in summa provincia tota perdita est.” Jean de Montagne to Boniface Amerbach, from Avignon, 2 May 1525, AK 3, no. 1016, 33, ll. 212–214. 34 A well-informed witness, Capal, wrote to Boniface Amerbach from Lyon, 16 May 1525, about the battle of Pavia and d’Alençon’s death: “Quis unquam vel a mortuis didicit tot tantasque Gallorum equitum copias cum duobus bellicosissimis peditibus, Heluetico scilicet et Germano, tam breui spacio et ferme nullo negotio esse deletas? Solus dux Alanconius fuga male servatus est; paucis enim post diebus, ut huc venit, priusquam pene sciretur egrotare, expiravit.” AK 3, no. 1019, 36–37, ll. 15–19. 35 Representatives of the Paris town council left for Lyon after 22 March, with letters of introduction to all the principal powers at court, including Charles d’Alençon. While they were led to believe that d’Alençon died on the Saturday of Holy Week 1525 (15 April), all other witnesses assign his death to 11 April. See Le Roux de Lincy, Procès-verbal des délibérations tenues à l’Hôtel de Ville de Paris, 15–17. 36 “Le mardy et mercredy xviiie et xixe jour avril Vc XXV après Pasques, furent apportez nouvelle que mons. le duc d’Alançon, estant à Lion ou à Sainct-Just pres Lion, estoit allé de vie à trespas [He had died on the 11th]. Il fust fort plaint, car combien [qu’]il ne fust de sa persone si chevalereux que oucuns [aucuns] aultres, toutesfoys il estoit estimé bon catolique et crestien et bien ayment les pouvrez. Dieu veuille avoir son ame! Il fust dict avoir prins la mort à cause de la prinse du Roy, son beau frere, et de la grant calamité de France.” Fagniez, Versoris, no. 226, 71.

328

chapter eight

well as, one may surmise, the death of her half-brother René of Savoy, who expired from his wounds days after the battle.37 His conduct during the battle and his survival were an embarrassment. He was unwanted upon his return.38 What Parisian journalists said in oblique terms and observers at Lyon registered in their surprise, official chroniclers implied by their awkward and otherwise inexplicable silences and contradictions regarding the death of this noble who stood next in line for the throne after the king’s three sons. So too, the court marked his death with little funerary pomp.39 Preoccupation with the king’s captivity cannot explain away this dishonor to the second person of the realm, since three women close to Francis I—his wife Claude, his daughter Charlotte, and his aunt Philiberte de Savoie—who died during his absence in 1524 all received fitting memorial upon his return, but not Charles.40 Marguerite’s letters from this period corroborate the collective disappointment with him upon his return and relief at his death soon thereafter. When writing to Francis I just after Charles had made it

37

“L’an 1524 (1525), le mardy de la sepmaine Sainte, au dict an, qui fut l’onziesme avril, mourut à lyon sur le Rhône le duc d’Alançon, de sa mort corporelle, qui estoit arrivé auparavant et tost après la desconfiture et prinse du Roy de là les mons. On dit qu’il mourut d’une pleurésie et d’ennuy [torment, pain, sadness] à cause de la dicte desconfiture et prinse du Roy, où le dict duc d’Alançon qui y estoit menoit l’arrière garde. On disoit que la dicte arrière garde ne frappa oncques coups à cause que la dicte desconfiture et prinse du Roy estoit jà advenue, dont madame la Régente luy en dit des choses que le dict duc d’Alançon print à desplaisir.” Lalanne, Bourgeois, 235–6; cf. Journal d’un bourgeois de Paris sous le règne de François Ier (1515–1536), ed. V.-L. Bourrilly (Paris: Librairie Alphonse Picard et fils, 1910), 198. 38 In his quasi-official history, which richly lauds the royal family, Jean Bourdigné did not discuss Charles d’Alençon’s conduct at or fate after Pavia, only mentioning in passing that he had died in order to explain how it was that Marguerite remarried. See Hystoire agregatiue des annalles et cronicques d’Anjou et du Maine (Paris: Antoine Couteau and Galliot du Pré; Angers: Clément Alexandre & Charles de Bougne, 1530), fol. CCIIIIr [MM1r]. For a description of Pavia and a list of the dead and captured, in an account which passes over d’Alençon’s escape and death in silence, see Georges Guiffrey, ed., Cronique du roy Françoys Premier de ce nom (Paris: Renouard, 1860), 44–46. 39 V.-L. Saulnier and Pierre Jourda see nothing odd in the royal family’s behavior towards d’Alençon’s or the confusion created by his death. Moreover, citing Marguerite’s recollections of his passing in her Prisons and Dernières poésies, they believe her to have been genuinely upset by his death. They also describe d’Alençon’s funeral and entombment shortly after his death as “honorable.” However, in comparison with the pomp lavished on all others near his rank during Francis I’s reign, the tributes afforded him were so unspectacular as to be truly remarkable. Saulnier 1973, 441–443; Jourda, Marguerite, 104–105. 40 Knecht, Renaissance Warrior, 250.

resurrecting king and reform, –

329

back to Lyon, Marguerite buried the news at the end of a cheery letter about the good health of the royal children. She expressed Charles’s utter depression at having escaped alone, writing that he considered his life ‘as death’ and offered up all that he had in order to free Francis.41 Later, while sitting vigil at his sickbed, Marguerite wrote to Francis that Charles would go to paradise a happy man if he could but see the king before dying, saying that his own fate was in God’s hands.42 She told Francis not to worry about her: she would bear up if Charles should pass away. Far from being distraught, upon hearing the news of Charles’s demise, Francis rejoiced and instantly framed plans to aid his release based on the remarriage of his sister.43 So too, by her own admission, Marguerite did not shed another tear after two days of mourning over the man with whom she had been joined in, by all indications, a loveless marriage for fifteen years—the better, she said, to redouble her efforts to liberate Francis.44 Charles’s death was, therefore, if not unnatural, certainly welcomed. Marguerite’s passive acquiescence to his demise is a somber backdrop against which her yearlong effort to save her brother appears in stark contrast. Marguerite would go on, as acclaimed by contemporaries, to save Francis from a deadly fever while in Spain and to preserve his honor from the consequences of defeat. Charles’ sudden fall, accompanied by a feverish illness from which Marguerite could not save him, is the inverse image of her ‘miraculous resurrection’ of Francis. Drawing on the credit she accrued from the latter’s victory over death and dishonor, she was able to save the network to whose fellowship she had so deeply committed herself. Charles’s death also bore materially on her subsequent ability to cultivate her network. While the Alençon territories escheated to the crown because Charles had had no children by Marguerite, Francis would grant her their usufruct for the rest of her life. Charles d’Alençon’s 41 “Qui sera pour fin, après vous avoir supplié recevoir les très humbles recommandacions de monseigneur d’Alençon, qui estime si maleureuse sa prisonnière liberté, que jusques à vous revoir, tient sa vie morte, qui avecques tout ce que Dieu lui a donné, mettra pour vostre service,” [c. 10 March 1525], Génin 2, 28, (Saulnier 1973, no. 206.1 [Jourda, Répertoire, no. 213]). 42 “. . . s’il [Charles d’Alençon] vous avoit veu avant mourir, il en iroit plus content en paradis. Je ne say que vous en dire, Monseigneur; tout est en la main de Dieu.” Génin 2, 29–30, (Saulnier 1973 and Jourda, Répertoire, no. 214). 43 Such at least were the reports that soon circulated throughout Europe. Some saw Charles d’Alençon’s death as an act of God. See Jourda, Marguerite, 106–107. 44 Génin 2, 30 (Saulnier 1973 and Jourda, Répertoire, no. 218).

330

chapter eight

generous testament also left his other territories to her in a controversial settlement, which his sisters would repeatedly contest.45 Above all, with Charles’s death an albatross of ill fame quickly and quietly slid from her neck, freeing her from being tainted by what could have been his deep and abiding disgrace, and thereby allowing her to go on to serve the king and to protect her network more effectively. In sum, her radically diverging reactions to the troubles of the two men who were closest to her and who faced similar physical and moral danger sheds light on the obscure corners in her supposedly mystical and pious soul, where her steely will hid: the inner strength needed to preserve her brother and spiritual brethren. Francis I in Purgatory at Madrid Marguerite’s heart followed Francis I into captivity, which she likened to purgatory, a period of spiritual testing and purification through which he would emerge strengthened to renew his realm and the church. That long year of bondage, especially during her journey to Madrid to negotiate her brother’s release from August to December 1525, was equally an ordeal that threatened to destroy the evangelical network that she had been championing at court. After she left, France became truly purgatorial for them as conservatives readied fires to cleanse the land of heretics. It was in saving Francis that she was able to save them. If this tale seems to have a healthy dose of the theatrical in the telling, it does so precisely because that is how Marguerite scripted and acted her part. Long before she penned most of her poetry, plays, or prose, she was composing narratives and dialogues for the political dramas at court. These contained admixtures of réal politique plots, chivalric trappings, and pious speeches. During Francis’s captivity, Marguerite’s production was designed, in part, to win her brother’s support for her

45 Charles desired Marguerite to have her dowry back and “je veux qu’elle soit la vye durant dame et maistresse de tous mes chasteaux et maisons et je luy donne entierement tous mes meubles quelque part quels soient assis.” Once this gift, other contractual obligations, and debts were fulfilled, he left to his sisters “ce qu’il leur pourra appartenir.” See the collated copy, dated 30 March 1525 [1526 new style], of d’Alençon’s will, dated 11 April 1525 [old style], in BnF Clairambault 324, fol. 283. Soon after his death Marguerite secured the usufruct of all Charles’s lands. See the various gifts and confirmations of titles accorded to her by Louise and Francis I: 10 May 1525, CAF 1, no. 2153, 404; 9 June 1525, CAF 1, no. 2169, 408; 21 April 1526, CAF 1, no. 2330, 441; and 18 July 1526, CAF 1, no. 2411, 456.

resurrecting king and reform, –

331

network and their shared vision of a renewed church and realm based on a return to the gospel. As for the political context of Marguerite’s starring performance, on the eve of the captivity crisis she found herself marginalized at court.46 In February, just before Pavia, Chancellor Duprat wrote to Marguerite to announce, or rather boast, that Francis I had augmented his powers under the regency.47 Marguerite must have felt quite unneeded at court, for she soon contemplated leaving the seat of power in Lyon for Paris, perhaps, though she does not say, in order to look into the case against Meigret or return closer to her spiritual home at Meaux. Soon thereafter, in the immediate aftermath of Pavia, at the time when her bedraggled husband had returned, she expressed her regret that she could not, because of her “ill-fortune in being a woman,” serve Francis I better than Anne de Montmorency (or her husband) though her will to help him was greater than theirs.48 Despite not being a man, she took part in the diplomatic overtures to England and Italian powers. Then, when Francis I and Louise authorized her to negotiate his release, she handpicked a group of trusty counselors.49 Her journey to

46 For the political events during Francis I’s captivity, see Knecht, Renaissance Warrior, 239–248; Jourda, Marguerite, 106–136; Terrasse, François Ier 1, 311–344; and Gilbert Jacqueton, La politique extérieure de L. de Savoie: relations diplomatiques de France et de l’Angleterre pendant la captivité de François Ier (1525–1526), Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études, Sciences Philologique et Historiques 88 (Paris: E. Bouillon, 1892). 47 [February 1525], mentioned in Marguerite’s response of 20 February [1525], Antoine Duprat, Glanes et regains récoltés dans les archives de maison Du Prat, ed. le marquis Du Prat (Versailles: Beau jeune, 1865), 15 (Jourda, Répertoire, 203 and 204). 48 “Bien est vray que toute ma vie j’auray envie que je ne puis faire pour luy office pareil au vostre, car où la voulenté passe toute celle que pouriés avoir, la fortune me tient tort, qui, pour estre femme, me rend le moyen difficile.” Marguerite to Montmorency, [March 1525], Génin 1, no. 25, 176 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 207). Later, in a variation on the female humility topos, Marguerite wrote to Francis “Je say bien, Monseigneur, que ce n’est à moy à vous conseiller; mais mon desir ne seroit content si je vous celois reins que je pense . . .” and proceeded to tell him to hold firm during the negotiations since pressure from the Italians and English would soon make the emperor yield. Génin 2, no. 24, 59 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 306). Francis obviously trusted her, since he selected her as ambassador and stipulated that if he were forced to abdicate in favor of his son in the event that he was not released, then he would have had Marguerite rule as regent should their mother, Louise of Savoy die. Aimé Champollion-Figeac, ed., Captivité de François Ier, Collection de documents inédits sur l’Histoire de France, 1st series (Paris: Imprimerie Royale, 1847), 421 ff. 49 Marguerite asked Francis I whom she should take with her to Spain, but many of the choices were left up to her, for in her entourage were members of her household and several gentleman, such as Guillaume Du Bellay and Stanislaw Łaski. Génin 2, no. 7, 34 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 228).

332

chapter eight

Spain lasted from mid-August until just before Christmas 1525. In the end, her negotiations with the emperor failed to bring about a treaty. Montmorency took over and brought off the signing of the Treaty of Madrid on behalf of Francis I in January. That agreement was no triumph. In essence, after a long wait, Francis finally resorted to a last-resort ruse, whose plan Marguerite had transmitted from Lyon: he would capitulate to all the emperor’s demands and sign any treaty that would guarantee his release, even one in which he gave up Burgundy (the chief sticking point in the negotiations), with the intention of repudiating it upon reentering France.50 And so it happened. In all these formal negotiations and secret machinations Marguerite played a significant role, but found no means, as she hoped and others predicted, to persuade the emperor to offer terms acceptable to the French; nor, for that matter, did Montmorency. Her truly heroic victory was in shaping the religious meaning ascribed to, as well as in mitigating the consequences of, Francis’s captivity. Well before taking up her headlining diplomatic role, Marguerite had begun articulating a relentlessly religious interpretation of Francis’s imprisonment. From the time that news of his capture reached the court until his release, Marguerite portrayed the situation, first for her brother, then for the royal court, and finally for the realm, as a kind of divine trial that would transform Francis into God’s instrument for the renewal of the church, not just in France but throughout the world. She described this test through a series of metaphors. Only reading the letters of Marguerite and others on the scene in series can reproduce her powerful religious myth.51

50 On 10 December [1525], while returning to France, Marguerite advised Francis, in accordance with the plans laid down by the court at Lyon, to hold out a bit longer for a good peace, which the emperor should more readily grant since the continuing battle in Italy was going against him. However, if this plan should fail, she tells him to refuse nothing (not his lands or children) in order to gain his freedom. Génin 2, no. 25, 60 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 313). Late on January 8, 1526, Marguerite informed Duprat that they were ready to agree to anything in order to have Francis released. She admits that the terms will be prejudicial to the king’s estate, but stresses the essential point: Francis will be free, i.e., free to repudiate the treaty and live to fight another day. Duprat, Glanes et regains, 18–19 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 328). 51 No claim is being made here that the elements of Marguerite’s religious gloss on Francis captivity were original, or that she was the only one trying to put an interpretive spin on it. Indeed, many of the themes she introduces—Francis and St. Francis, the Christ-like attributes of the king, and so on—were common tropes in the depiction of her brother. See Anne-Marie Lecoq, François Ier imaginaire: Symbolique et politique à l’aube de la Renaissance française (Paris: Macula, 1987).

resurrecting king and reform, –

333

In the first days of his captivity, which coincided with the Lenten season, Marguerite told Francis that his letters from prison were like ministrations of the Holy Spirit, which consoled Louise and herself in the passion of their suffering.52 Francis I had a rather more somber view of his personal position vis-à-vis the Godhead, considering his defeat as a chastisement visited from heaven. In the Lenten spirit of penitence, he decided to purge himself by fasting. Instead of weakening his body through privation, Marguerite begged him to strengthen his soul by reading Paul’s Epistles and the Gospels. To convince Francis to follow her advice, she informed his closest companion in captivity, Anne de Montmorency, that three years earlier a devout recluse had prophesied that if the king would read the Scriptures daily, he would be transformed into a conduit of God’s salvation on earth. My cousin, there is a very devout hermit who, three years ago, kept urging a man whom I know to pray to God for the king and to do him service, which he did. This man informed me that he is convinced that if the king would read Paul’s Epistles as a form of prayer when he retires for the day, he is sure that the king will be redeemed to the glory of God and his own honor. For God promises in his Gospel that anyone who loves the truth, the truth will save. I believe that the king does not have a copy, so I am sending you my own copy, asking you to beg him for my sake to please read them. I firmly believe that the Holy Spirit, who

Marguerite’s orchestration of these religious themes, however, was masterful and, as revealed in the rich documentation on Francis’s captivity, framed the court’s interpretive discourse. See Champollion-Figeac, Captivité de François Ier, and idem, Les poésies du roi François Ier (Paris, 1847). 52 “Monseigneur, vostre lectre a porté tel effect à la santé de madame et de tous ceux qui vous aiment, que ce nous a esté après la douleur de la pacion ung saint Esprist, voyant la grace que Nostre Seigneur vous fet que la prison n’est que preuve de vostre vertu . . .” Marguerite to Francis I, Lyon, [c. 10 March 1525], Génin 2, no. 2, 27 (Saulnier 1973, 206.1 [Jourda, Répertoire, 213]). The letter goes on to speak of their being in the midst of the Lenten season, so the ‘passion’ mentioned must refer to the news of Francis’s capture, metaphorically anticipating Christ’s passion on Good Friday. In response to Francis’s first letter after being captured, Louise and Marguerite reassured him that their ‘Trinity’ would stand firm and that with them in charge his children and realm would remain safe during his absence. While reiterating that they shared in Francis’s suffering through their union in the Royal Trinity, Marguerite subordinated this religious metaphor to another narrative in which she plays the role of Francis’s spiritual guide through the divine trial that he was experiencing. For the initial mention of their triune solidarity in face of adversity, see Marguerite d’Alençon and Louise of Savoy to Francis I, Lyon, 28 February and [March] [1525], Champollion-Figeac, Captivité, no. 46, 134 and no. 53, 142; idem, Poesies, 229 and 230 (Jourda, Répertoire, nos. 205 and 206); and on the Royal Trinity see further Marguerite to Francis I, September [1525], Génin 2, no. 2, 40 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 239).

334

chapter eight abides in the written word, will do as marvelous things through the king as he did through those who wrote the Scriptures down.53

Though she does not name the hermit or the man, her allusions point back to Meaux and the enigmatic figure of Jean, the Hermit of Livry, and Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples.54 Approximately three years earlier Marguerite had visited Meaux (September 1521). As related above, Jean the Hermit was in contact with the Meaux group and came under investigation at the same time as them in 1523.55 According to Marguerite’s report, the recluse Jean must have been aware of Lefèvre’s translation project and encouraged him to complete it. Especially important, Marguerite relates that Lefèvre had long ago predicted that the king would be redeemed, not merely, as Marguerite interprets it, from Francis’s unforeseen captivity, but from his sinful life to the glory of God and his own honor. In subsequent letters, Marguerite reiterated her belief that Francis was on a religious journey while in captivity. She wrote: I entreat you, my lord, to believe without any doubt that your captivity has occurred for no other reason than to test how much you love Him and to give you time to reflect and realize just how much He loves you. He wants to have your whole heart,56 just as He has given you His own. For after having united you to Himself through these tribulations, He wants to redeem you through the merits of His victorious resurrection to His glory and your consolation, so that through you His name will be magnified and sanctified, not only in your kingdom, but also throughout Christendom, even unto the conversion of the infidels. O how blessed your

53 “Mon cousin, il y a quelque recluse fort dévote, qui trois ans a, n’a faict que inviter ung homme que je congnoys à prier Dieu pour le Roy et luy faire service, ce qu’il a faict; et m’a mandé qu’il est asseuré que s’y plaist au Roy par manière d’oraison, tous les jours, quand il sera retiré, lire les épistres de Sainct-Pol, il est asseuré qu’il sera délivré à la gloire de Dieu et l’honneur de luy; car il promet en son évangile que qui aime la vérité, la vérité le délivera. Et pour ce que je pense qu’il n’en a point, vous envoye les miennes, vous priant le supplier de ma part qu’il les veuille lire, et je croy fermement que le Sainct-Esperit, qui es demouré en la lettre, fera par luy chouses ainsy grandes comme il a faict par ceulx qui les ont escriptes.” Marguerite to Anne de Montmorency, 3 March 1525, Génin 1, no. 26, 177–178 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 208). 54 Marguerite’s description of how to read the Scriptures ‘as if in prayer’ is an important instance of how the Meaux group taught lay people to engage in the new experience of reading the divine word on their own. 55 See chapter 6 at n. 99. 56 This passage (“. . . car il veult avoir votre cueur entièrement, comme par amour vous a donné le sien, pour après vous avoir uny à luy par tribulations, vous deslivrer à sa gloire et vostre consolacion par le mérite de sa victorieuse résurrecsion . . .”) is very close in substance and development to the rondeau “En aymant Dieu de cueur entierement,” which was quoted as the epigraph to chapter 7.

resurrecting king and reform, –

335

brief imprisonment will appear hereafter, through which God will have redeemed so many souls from faithlessness and eternal damnation!57

Later that summer, Francis I fell deadly ill. Marguerite only found out about Francis’s condition after she had begun her “pilgrimage” to Spain to negotiate her brother’s release.58 She rushed to his bedside in forced marches. When she arrived his condition seemed hopeless. The Spanish doctors, who were not inclined to let Francis play dead, deemed him to be mortally ill, a determination that convinced Charles V to visit his languishing “brother.” At that moment of crisis, Marguerite ‘saved’ Francis. Jean de Selve, first president of the Parlement of Paris, wrote back to his insubordinate colleagues in Paris an eyewitness account of Francis’s healing: A week ago, the duchess d’Alençon gathered all of the king’s and her own gentlemen as well as the ladies to pray to God and all received our Creator. Afterwards she had Mass said in the king’s chamber. At the moment the Holy Sacrament was elevated, the archbishop of Embrun [François de Tournon] urged the king to look at the Holy Sacrament, and just then, the king, who had been without sight or hearing, fixed his eyes on the Holy Sacrament, raising his hands. After the Mass, the duchess had the Holy Sacrament presented to him so that he could worship it. And immediately the king said: “This is my God who will heal me body and soul. I beg you, let me receive him.” And when someone told him that he could not swallow it,59 he replied, “Let it be done.” Then the duchess

57 “. . . je vous supplie, Monseigneur, croire sans riens en douter que ce [Francis’s captivity] n’est que pour esprouver combien vous l’aimez, et pour vous donner le loisir de penser et connoistre combien il vous aime; car il veult avoir votre cueur entièrement, comme par amour vous a donné le sien, pour après vous avoir uny à luy par tribulations, vous deslivrer à sa gloire et vostre consolacion par le mérite de sa victorieuse résurrecsion, afin que par vous son nom soit congnu et sanctifié, non seulement en vostre réaulme, mais par toute la cristienté jusques à la conversion des infideles. O que bienheureuse sera vostre brefve prison, par qui Dieu tant d’ames deslivrera de celle d’infidélité et esternelle damnacion!” Marguerite to Francis I, [May 1525, Lyon], Génin 2, no. 5, 32–33 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 219). Cf. Marguerite’s epistolary homiletics during this time: God can make things from naught and ice burn. Jourda, Répertoire, no. 234. During the Advent season of 1525, she prayed that God would, just as he had sent His only son to be the mediator between Him and humans, “envoier le moyen de paix a sa gloire, vostre honneur, et consolacion de tous ceus qui vous aiment.” Génin 2, no. 21, 53 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 303). 58 Marguerite sends news to Francis I about the progress of the “pèlerins,” i.e., Marguerite and her company on their way to Spain (i.e., as if on the road to St. James of Compostela). [Before 19 September 1525], Saulnier 1975 C and Saulnier 1977, no. 243.1. 59 Not being able to swallow seems to have been an imposition to communing properly.

336

chapter eight had part of the host broken off, which he received with such great contrition and piety that there was not a soul there that did not break down in tears. The duchess then received the remainder of the Holy Sacrament and from that hour the king has gotten better and better.60

The story of Francis’s recovery, as narrated by Jean de Selve for consumption at home, particularly by the unruly members of parlement, showed that Francis was saved by the grace of God and Marguerite’s pious offices. This miraculous work of God, as de Selve described it, directly refuted the parlement’s claim that the afflictions of the realm were due to the crown’s irreligious policies.61 Thereafter members of the royal court adopted the metaphors of the Passion to describe Francis fevered condition and the Resurrection for his recovery. Moreover, the royal secretary Florimond Robertet informed Marguerite that the court believed she deserved the credit for his recovery. Louise of Savoy understands and feels certain that after God you have played a great part in this passion, which, along with the joy at his resur-

60 “Il y a aujourd’huy huict jours que madame la duchesse [Marguerite d’Alençon] feist mectre en estat tous les gentilshommes de la maison du Roy et les siens, ensemble ses dames, pour prier Dieu, et tous receurent nostre Createur; et après, fut dicte la messe en la chambre du Roy. Et à l’heure de l’elevation du Saint-Sacrement, monseigneur l’archevesque d’Ambrun exhorta le Roy à regarder le Saint-Sacrement; et lors, ledict seigneur, qui avoit esté sans veoir et sans ouïr, regarda le Sainct-Sacrement, esleva ses mains, et après la messe, madame la duchesse luy fit presenter ledict Sainct-Sacrement pour l’adorer. Et incontinent le Roy dit: ‘C’est mon Dieu qui me guerira l’ame et le corps, je vous prie que le reçoive.’ Et à ce que l’on luy dict qu’il ne le pourroit avaler, il respondit: ‘Que sy feroit.’ Et lors madame la duchesse fit departir une partie de sa saincte hostie, laquelle il receut avec la plus grande compunction et devotion, qu’il n’y avoit cueur qu’il ne fondit en larmes. Madicte dame la duchesse receut le surplus dudict Sainct-Sacrement. Et de ceste heure-là, il est tousjours allé en amendant.” Jean de Selve to the Parlement of Paris, Toledo, 1 October 1525, Champollion-Figeac, Captivité, no. 158, 331–333; 332. 61 Selve said Francis’s complete recovery, “est œuvre de Dieu miraculeuse, ainsy que les Françoys et Espagnolz qui ont esté allentour de luy, ont chascun jugé.” He then proceeds to tell the parlement the moral of the story: “Messieurs, je vous ay volontiers escript ces choses icy, afin que vous congnoissiez comment Dieu, par sa bonté, a le royaulme de France, tant en chef que en membres, en singuliere recommandation, et avons grande occasion de le recongnoistre. Vous certifions deux choses: sy est que le Roy a faict grandz promesses et voeux à Dieu le créateur de faire et antretenir beaucoup de choses que vous sçaurez cy-après, qui sont toutes à l’honneur de Dieu, paix et soulagement de ses subjetz, en tous estatz; et aussy est qu’il a receu jusques icy le cour de parlement en bonne et grande estimation. J’espere, au plaisir de Dieu, que luy donnerez tousjours occasion de continuer à porter l’amour à icelle que le chef doibt à ses membres.” The attempt to mollify the parlement is clear. The unstated warning is that, contrary to what the parlement had argued in their remonstrances, God approved of Francis and his government.

resurrecting king and reform, –

337

rection, will, I believe, considering the One who has accomplished it, be long-lasting, free the king honorably and quickly, and bring joy and happiness to our lord king, to Louise, to the whole realm, as well as generally in all Christians affairs. To you, Madame, belongs the honor and credit for this, which indeed everyone grants and attributes to you.62

Upon hearing of the miracle at Madrid, Odet de Foix wrote in a similar vein: Madame, since Our Lord has been pleased to bestow such great mercy on us in saving our master from a most deadly illness, I have high hopes that we will see him soon, given your good efforts [so far] and the diligence you will employ in the matter. Believe me, I am sure that, after God, you have assisted and aided him more than all the doctors.63

In the symbolic overlay of Christ and Francis, passion and fever, resurrection and recovery, everyone at court was quick to see the political implications of Francis’s new life in the negotiations for his release as well as versus the regime’s critics.64 And Marguerite was equally quick to capitalize on her augmented credit. A few weeks later Marguerite

62 “. . . [after God] elle [Louise of Savoy] scet et sent certainement que avez porté vostre grant part de cest passion, avecques la joye de resurrection, laquelle je tiens, veu celluy d’où elle est procedée, estre de longue durée, de briefve et honneste delivrance et de grant contentement et satisfaction audict seigneur et à Madame, à tout le royaulme, et generalement à toute la chose publique chrestienne et à vous, madame, l’onneur et merite qui vous en est par tout le monde du et attribué.” Florimond Robertet to Marguerite, 7 October 1525. Champollion-Figeac, Captivité, no. 179, 356–57 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 265). Louise assured Marguerite “[la] nouvelle de la bonne santé du Roy et de vous . . . [et] de la grasse [grace] qu’il [God] nous a fayte,” had resurrected her from her own death and passion (in that order), ibid., no. 155, 329, incorrectly dated [September 1525]. Rather the letter must have been written after Francis’s recovery and been contemporaneous with de Foix’s letter [c. 6 October] since Florimond records that “Pommeraye” had brought the news and Louise says that she was then sending “Pommeraye” and another officer to Marguerite to confirm the report of the king’s good health. 63 “Madame, j’ay bonne espérance, puisqu’il a pleu à Nostre Seigneur nous faire si grant grace de nous saulver le maistre d’une si griefve maladye, que le verrons de brief, avec vostre bonne ayde, à [sic for et?] la diligence que y ferés, et me tenés pour tout certain que, après Dieu, l’avés plus servy et aydé que le medecins.” Odet de Foix to Marguerite, 6 October 1525, Champollion-Figeac, Captivité, no. 171, 346–347 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 264). 64 Marguerite was also keenly aware of the leverage that Francis’s near fatal illness afforded in negotiating with the emperor, and kept it as a reserve arm. When Charles V proved reluctant to treat with her, Marguerite instructed her brother to have a relapse in order to pressure Charles V to lower his demands and force him to negotiate. See Jourda, Répertoire, nos. 250, 252, 254. Marguerite later told Montmorency to have Francis play ill, see Jourda, Répertoire, no. 267.

338

chapter eight

reminded Francis of her hope that he would reform the church. On 4 October 1525, the Feast of St. Francis, she wrote that she would: implore Him who commanded St. Francis to repair His ruined church to give you the grace to become the agent through whom He will complete the restoration of the church for the benefit of all Christians.65

Finally, but not perhaps with the finest sense of religious symbolic order, Marguerite interpreted Francis’s captivity as a purgatory from which he would emerge by the grace of God alone. When negotiations for Francis’s release were frustratingly stalled, Marguerite wrote to him: My Lord, I beg you for the honor of God, rejoice and be comforted. Believe me, He who revived you when the doctors despaired will deliver you when every recourse seems exhausted. God’s grace alone, which He has already given to you, is enough to pluck you from the purgatory of Spain.66

So much for Marguerite’s exegesis of events. In sum, she depicted her brother’s experience in captivity through a set of metaphors that elided from one to the other according to circumstances and the religious seasons. Immediately after Pavia, she ascribed to him the role of a Lenten penitent, who should read the Scriptures for his salvation. Then, while he suffered a deadly fever, she depicted him as a quasi-Christ undergoing a passion, whom she then saved by having him partake in the sacrament of Christ’s passion. After his recovery, she returned to her campaign to shape Francis’s understanding of his captivity as a preparation to fulfill a new role thereafter as God’s agent for the reform of the church, telling him to follow the path of the saint whose name he bore, the saint who began the restoration of the church. Finally, she told Francis that he would be saved from his physical and spiritual captivity by the grace of God alone, who was purifying him for His work through purgatory 65 Marguerite wrote Francis that she would “suplyer Celluy qui a coumandé a sainct Françoys d’aler reparer son esglize destruiste vous donner grace d’estre celluy par quy y parfera son euvre au bien de tous le[s] cristiens.” Raymond Ritter, ed., Lettres de Marguerite de Valois-Angoulême (Paris: Édouard Champion; Toulouse: Édouard Privat, 1927), no. 7; Champollion-Figeac, Captivité, 342; and idem, Poésies, 231 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 260). 66 “Monsieur, je vous supplie pour l’honneur de Dieu vous fortifier et resjouir, et croire que celuy qui vous a ressuscite contre l’opinion des medecins, vous deslivera quant tout secours vous semblera failly. Car la grace seule que Dieu vous a donnee est suffisante pour vous tirer du purgatoire d’Espaigne.” Génin 2, no. 18, 48 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 301).

resurrecting king and reform, –

339

in Madrid. In early 1526, when Francis was about to be released, Marguerite reassured him from France that everyone was looking forward to his return, which, against the expectations of many, had come about because of their unrelenting trust in God alone.67 While working to convert Francis to her vision of reform, Marguerite claimed his aid in making one small step in that direction. During the early weeks of October, just after she had healed Francis, the Meaux group suffered the chastisement that conservatives had long reserved for them. On 12 November, Francis I issued the only royal command of his whole captivity, ordering the Parlement of Paris to suspend the cases against Lefèvre, Roussel, and Caroli until his return from captivity.68 No one has ever doubted that Marguerite was behind this order. The proof is that during the following spring, as Francis made his slow ascent from Spain towards Paris, Marguerite kept cajoling him to trounce the parlement, which, ignoring his orders, was attempting to ramrod the cases against her protégés to fatal conclusions.69 These heresy cases, she claimed, “touched her honor closely.” Thus, in the early months of 1526, Marguerite wrote to Francis again requesting his intervention on behalf of the Meaux group as well as Berquin, who

67

[February 1526], Génin 2, no. 33, 74 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 338). 12 November 1525, “Lettres au Parlement de Paris, lui ordonnant de suspendre incontinent les procédures a tort commencées à l’encontre de Jacques Fabri, Pierre Caroli et Girard Ruffi, à l’instigation des théologiens de l’Université de Paris. Madrid, 12 novembre [1525].” The text in Toussaints Du Plessis, Histoire de l’église de Meaux 2, 282, mentions CAF, no. 18505, 736. 69 Marguerite complained that the parlement was not respecting Francis’s letters of November ordering the suspension of the trials against Lefèvre, Roussel, and Caroli. She called their actions “fasheries” and petitioned Francis to do something about these matters “which touch my honor so closely.” “Toutesfois ce qui plus me desplait n’est pas tant ce qui touche de bien près à mon honneur que de voir vostre volunte si mal entendue, suivie et obeye, principalement de ceus que je pensois entierement n’avoir l’oeuil qu’a vous. Et pleust a Dieu, Monseigneur, que toute ces fascheries fussent endormies jusques a vostre retour non pour crainte de mon ennuy qui ne peut estre plus grand que celuy que j’ay de perdre le bein de vostre veue, mais pour la contraincte [eu] quoy ces affaires me mettent de vous en importuner car estant icy seulle de tous amis n’ayant consolacion, conseil ny force que de la seurrete de vostre promesse.” Jourda, Répertoire, no. 319, 70–71 with text, and also Ritter, Lettres de Marguerite de Valois-Angoulême, no. 33. 68

340

chapter eight

had been arrested in January 1526.70 When Francis and Montmorency finally put a stop to the parlement, she thanked them profusely.71 Francis was resurrected, but had Marguerite succeed in rehabilitating his image or her own reputation, both of which had been tarnished in the preceding years? Contemporaries actually gave Marguerite very little credit for her role in Spain. The Bourgeois de Paris criticized her long and expensive journey, concluding that, in the end, “it did not help a bit.”72 Marguerite herself was sensitive to such an interpretation, and did her best to explain that the emperor’s “dissimulation” and “hypocrisy” had caused her negotiations to fall through.73 Only the official histories took the court’s line that she had been instrumental in redeeming her brother from captivity, indeed claiming that she had convinced the emperor to release her brother under reduced terms, an assertion that

70 Marguerite sends lyrical praise to Francis for saving Berquin, and vilifies those who pursued him, claiming that Berquin has suffered for God and the king’s glory. The king’s mercy will honor God and himself. She contemns the Parlement of Paris for their malice and forgetfulness of God and the king. “Monseigneur, le desir que j’avoir d’obéir à vostre coumandement estoit assez grant, sans l’avoir redoublé par la cherité qu’il vous a pleu faire au pouvre Berquin, selon vostre proumesse; dont je suis seure que celuy pour qui je croy qu’il a souffert [i.e., God] aura agréable la miséricorde que pour son honneur avez fait à son serviteur et au vostre. Et ceux qui, en vostre tribulation, ont oublie et Dieu et vous, [the parlement] connoistront leur malice n’avoir seu faire ingnorer verite et l’esperit que le Tout-Puissant vous a donné; dont maindre ne sera leur confusion que la gloire perpetuelle que vous en rendra Celui qui par vous augement la louange de son nom.” Herminjard 1, no. 172, 421; Génin 2, no. 35, 77 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 347). 71 Marguerite thanked Montmorency for having helped to save Berquin from prison (19 November 1526) whose life she valued as much as her own. Génin 1, no. 54, 219 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 362). 72 “Au dict an 1525, au mois d’aoust, ma dicte dame d’Alançon, naguères veufve du seigneur d’Alançon, s’en alla en Espaigne, et partist de Lyon, où elle estoit, avec tout son train par l’authorité de madame la Régente, sa mère, pour aller vers l’Empereur, pour et au nom de ma dicte dame la Régente, et pour espérer pacifier et faire quelque bon traicté, et appointement avec le dict Empereur, pour et affin de r’avoir le roy de France, soit par mariage du Roy à madame Éléonor, seur du dict Empereur, veufve du feu roy de Portugal. On dit qu’elle y alla avec trois cens chevaulx, où il y avoit plusieurs grandz seigneurs, tant évesques que seigneurs et gentilzhommes en grand nombre, avec gens de conseil pour la conduire: et que la dicte dame la Régente luy bailla d’estat par chacun jour pour sa despence, la somme de cinq cens livres, qui est par mois la somme de quinze mil livres. Et s’en revint au mois de décembre ensuivant à Lyon, vers madame La Régente, sa mère, après que le Roy de France, son frère, fut guary; et n’y fist rien.” Lalanne, Bourgeois, 258–259. Versoris only noted that Marguerite left, saying nothing about the outcome of her journey. Fagniez, Versoris, no. 269, 82. 73 Marguerite complained about the emperor and his Spanish advisors’ lack of honor and honesty in the negotiations when explaining her lack of success. Jourda, Répertoire, nos. 266, 270, 271, 272, 277, 301, 329.

resurrecting king and reform, –

341

was patently false.74 As for the resurrection of the king and Marguerite’s holy role in it, none of the images that the court tried to project seems to have gained common currency among the public. For the sake of the network’s survival, the most important question was whether after Marguerite’s long effort Francis would live up to the exalted role as their champion that she had scripted for him. Safe Havens and Home As is well known, Marguerite recalled Lefèvre, Roussel, and d’Arande from exile as her brother was being released. What has not been realized is that when planning her pilgrimage to Spain, Marguerite foresaw the consequences of her pending absence for her protégés and prepared an emergency exit for “Antonius Peregrinus” (Anthony the Pilgrim—Lefèvre d’Étaples), “Tolinus” (Gérard Roussel), and “Cornelius” (Michel d’Arande).75 The flight of the refugees from Meaux to Strasbourg is not surprising since Farel, Lambert, and Agrippa von Nettesheim were already there.76 Basel too would have been a logical destination. During the summer of 1525, Jean Prévost from Meaux and a fellow Franciscan had fled there.77 It would have been natural for Lefèvre, Roussel, and d’Arande

74 Louise sent Marguerite “vers l’esleu empereur envoya pour (par tous licites moyens) de son trescher filz et Roy treschrestien traicter la delivrance. Duquel voyage icelle noble et vertueuse duchesse d’alencon si prudentement se porta que a toutes les dames francoyses acquist glorieux renom et louenges eternelles. Et si bien ouvra que son beau parler fut cause de flechir l’esleu empereur ia par sa bonne fortune incite a soy condescendre a appoinctement et mettre icelluy noble Roy Francoys a delivrance soubz certain pact et condition, de laquelle chose depuis dieu aydant sortit plain effect.” Jean de Bourdigné, Hystoire agrégative des annalles et cronicques d’Anjou [et du Maine] (Paris: Antoine Couteau and Galliot du Pré; Angers: Clément Alexandre and Charles de Bougne, 1530), CCIIIIr–v [MM2r–v], which is repeated verbatim by the Cronique du roy Françoys Premier, 48–49. 75 Marguerite’s three protégés took these aliases during their stay at Strasbourg, much to the derision of Erasmus. Their identity and whereabouts were evidently very loosely kept secrets, since the boys on the street knew who they were and Lefèvre compromised their position by sending his servant back to Meaux. See Allen 6, no. 1675, 281, ll. 70–72; [Roussel] to [Le Sueur], Herminjard 1, no. 168, 408–415. 76 Schmidt, Gérard Roussel, 49. 77 Two Franciscans, one of whom, Jean Prévost, had preached at Meaux, arrived at Strasbourg during July 1525, bringing letters from Antoine Du Blet [at Lyon?] to Jean Vaugris and Conrad Resch authorizing a line of credit to Farel, probably for their printing enterprise at Basel. “[PS] Tout maintenant sont arrivez deux frères, quondam religieux de St. François. L’ung s’appelle Joannes Praepositus [Prévost], lequel a esté prisonnier à Paris: praedicabat in Episcopatu Meldensi. Il a apourté des lettres de

342

chapter eight

to follow Prévost’s footsteps, who had followed the path of their own letters to Oecolampadius, Konrad Pellikan, Hugwald, the Amerbach family, and the printer Cratander. Indeed, before returning to France in 1526, Lefèvre did journey to visit Erasmus in Basel in mid-May.78 While there he likely arranged with Cratander for the publication of his Commentary on the Catholic Epistles, which appeared in 1527. A body of evidence suggests that Marguerite helped to prepare the Meaux group’s way to Strasbourg by building on these established contacts. In the summer of 1525, her distant cousin, Sigismund von Hohenlohe, dean of Cathedral Chapter of Strasbourg and an early leader of the Reformation there, had written to her. In late June, as she prepared for her trip to Spain, she wrote to Sigismund to thank him for his offers of aid and ask him to keep in close contact.79 Soon thereafter, she also wrote to the young Polish noble, Jan Łaski in Basel, whose brother had served in Francis I’s army at Pavia.80 These letters

Bletus à Vaugris, faisantes mentions de voz L escus, et dit en somme que l’on vous baille argent. Vaugris m’a dit qu’il en fera debvoir auprès de son oncle.” Pierre Toussain to Guillaume Farel, Basel to Strasbourg, [c. 9] July 1525, Herminjard 1, no. 152, 364–366; 365–366. See further Herminjard 1, no. 153, 366–368, no. 157, 375–377, no. 161, 386–389; 388; and Herminjard 5, no. 154a, 388–391. 78 For the relationship of Lefèvre and Erasmus in their later years and Lefèvre’s visit, see Guy Bedouelle, “Lefèvre d’Étaples et Érasme: une amitié critique” in Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples (1450?–1536): Actes du colloque d’Étaples les 7 et 8 novembre 1992, ed. Jean-François Pernot (Paris: Honoré Champion, 1995) 23–42, esp. 39–42. It is possible that Lefèvre also stopped at Basel before going to Strasbourg; at least, this is what a lost letter by Farel to Nicolas d’Esch, dated 9 July 1526, is supposed to have said. “Faber Stapulensis . . . s’estoit retiré à Basle et de là à Strasbourg, sachant qu’il [Farel] y estoit.” See the summary in Herminjard 8, no. 179a, 484–485. 79 Marguerite repeatedly stressed that she was bound to Sigismund by more than blood. Religious ties united them as part of God’s elect: “. . . dans les ames fidèles qu’une volonte, un Dieu et une esperance; qui est la fiance de tous les esleus.” Génin 1, no. 28, 181 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 221), which is translation into French of Hohenlohe’s German translation from the original French letter printed in Sigismund’s Kreuzbuchlein, edited by Johann Christian Wibel, Merckwürdige Lebens-Geschichte des Grafen Sigmunds von Hohenlohe (Frankfort & Leipzig, 1748). The exchange of letters between French evangelicals in Lyon, Strasbourg, Basel, and Metz was particularly lively in the mid-summer of 1525. Sigismund and Marguerite’s letters could well have been carried by any number of those crossing the borders: Jean Vaugris, Michel Bentin, or Jean Prévost. 80 Marguerite wrote her letter to Jan Łaski, who was lodging with Erasmus, just before leaving for Spain, i.e., between Lyon and Aigues-Mortes where she embarked, in late August (Jourda, Repertoire, no. 232). Erasmus mentions her letter to Łaski in his to Marguerite of 28 September 1525, Allen 6, no. 1615, 176, ll. 49–56; trans. Génin 1, no. 31, 184 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 255). Jan Łaski left thereafter for Venice and his brother Stanislaw, returning from captivity, accompanied Marguerite to Spain. See AK 3, nos. 1027, 1028, and 1076; and CE 2, 301–302; “Stanislaw Łaski.”

resurrecting king and reform, –

343

established direct and timely ties with those able to offer refuge to her protégés should need arise during her absence. Remarkably, when Lefèvre and Roussel fled from Meaux, they headed to Strasbourg without telling their patron, Briçonnet. Gérard Roussel only informed him of their destination after their arrival when money troubles became pressing. Excusing himself for not having gone to Avignon to improve his Hebrew (as Vatable had done years before) and as Briçonnet perhaps had been led to expect, he offered obediently to push on to the papal enclave, but argued they should remain in Strasbourg since there were many learned men in the city from whom he could learn equally well. Barring a move, Roussel asked for funds from his benefice to be forwarded or an exchange be made for another sinecure closer to him in Denis Briçonnet’s diocese of Lodève.81 If the Meaux group’s flight was a hurried shambles, their destination appears to have been prearranged, for d’Arande soon joined them there from Lyon.82 While Briçonnet had been left in the dark, Marguerite was kept informed about their situation during her stay in Spain. As noted above, Francis I wrote to suspend the parlement’s proceedings against them shortly after the trials began; she was further kept informed about their whereabouts by Sigismund von Hohenlohe, who wrote to her at least twice during her stay in Spain.83 Though these letters

81 “Male me habuit quod Tuae Dignationis consilium non antea resciverim quam egressus essem regno, quod dudum cupieram commigrare in locum Avenioni proximum, quo me jam proficisci volebas; nec alia sane causa id cupieram quondam, quam ut in literis hebraicis et in eruendis prophetarum oraculis instructior ad te redirem. Adeoque quod hucusque non licuerat, occasione nuper accepta, obvium factum per te est, si modo non defuissem negocio. Non quod non sint in hoc in quo degimus loco viri peritia linguarum juxta ac dono prophetiae prediti, quorum consuetudine assequi possim quod cupio, in meam et proximi aedificationem, qui putem vix fieri posse ut redeat christianae religionis puritas hactenus pene obsoleta, nisi adsint qui fontes porrigant quos reliquit nobis Spiritus per Mosem et prophetas, e quibus promptum sit et veluti ad manum cuique bibere.” Herminjard 1, no. 167, 405; Quadroni, Farel corr., no. 43, 16, mistakenly identifies this letter as being sent to Farel and fails to cite it as per Herminjard; Schmidt, Gérard Roussel, no. 6, 188–191. On Roussel’s financial needs, see ibid., 406, and his accompanying letter to Nicolas Le Sueur, ibid., no. 406, 412–414. 82 The date of d’Arande’s arrival at Strasbourg is not indicated in any contemporary source. He was still at Lyon on 8 October, six days after the Parlement of Paris had published its arrest against the Meaux group. See Michel Bentin to Oecolampadius, Herminjard 1, no. 164, 398–400; Briefe Oekolampads 1, no. 284, 395–397. 83 In Marguerite’s letter to Sigismund von Hohenlohe of 9 March [1526], she mentions having received one letter while in Spain (September–December) and the other when she returned to her mother’s side in France (14 December 1525), Herminjard 1, no. 171, 420; Génin 1, no. 48, 211 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 340 mentioning nos. 326 and 326.1).

344

chapter eight

are lost, they contained information on the Meaux refugees, for subsequently, on 9 March 1526, just as Francis was readying to cross back into France, Marguerite thanked Sigismund for these missives, telling him that the king would recall the refugees upon return. Although they had actually lodged with Capito,84 Sigismund may have helped finance their stay since Marguerite thanked him specifically for hosting them. Given that Sigismund and Marguerite had established these ties during the summer of 1525, that Briçonnet was ignorant of the Meaux refugees movements, that she shepherded their return to France, and that she also saw to it that Caroli and Pierre Toussain enjoyed safe havens with Anne Malet de Graville, baroness d’Entragues, one can fairly conclude that Marguerite masterminded the preservation of the members of her network.85 Writing some fifty-five years later, Johann Sturm claimed that Lefèvre and Roussel had been sent by Marguerite to consult with Bucer and Capito.86 Having been a pillar of the Protestant movement in Strasbourg and a long-time agent for France in the Du Bellay diplomatic corps 84 Farel’s handwritten note on a letter by Roussel to Le Sueur, Herminjard 1, no. 168, 408–409, n. 1. 85 Caroli found refuge with the baroness d’Entragues after the parlement’s indictment of 3 October. In December, the baroness rebuffed the parlement’s huissier sergent who was sent to arrest him. Veissière, Guillaume Briçonnet, 357 and 371. After having reached France by way of a short stay in prison in Lorraine in the summer of 1526, Pierre Toussain had passed some time at court with Marguerite and the other evangelicals before being lodged, evidently at Marguerite’s request, with the baroness “in hac arce generosissimae mulieris Dominae d’Entraigues, exulum Christi susceptricis.” Herminjard 1, no. 181, 444–448, 445; Schmidt, Gérard Roussel, no. 8, 193–196; and Brief Oekolampads 1, no. 415, 567–569. After having been a member of Claude de France’s entourage at court, where she likely heard Marguerite’s evangelical preachers, she (“Antragues”) became one of Marguerite’s “Dames” in 1529. Her daughter “Mlle. d’Entragues,” after having been on the rolls at 300 l.t., was listed as “hors” (no longer part of) Marguerite’s household by 1539; see Lefranc, Comptes, 69, 81. 86 Johann Sturm, Quarti antipappi tres partes priores [Antipappus quartus] (Neapoli Palatinorum [Neustadt], in officina Matthaei Harnisch, 1580), 8 [B1v]: “Capitonis vero et Buceri tanta statim fama erat: ut Iacobus Faber Stapulensis, et Gerardus Rufus clam e Gallia profecti, Capitonem et Bucerum audirent: et de omnibus doctrinae praecipuis locis, cum his differerent, missi a Margareta Francisci Regis sorore, Nauarrae Regina, auia huius Henrici Regis: cui mater Ioanna, hanc quam nunc tuetur, haereditariam doctrinam atque Religionem tradidit. “Quocirca id quod in Gallia in religione boni est, id prope ex hoc fonte derivatum est: et Evangelica vitis in Gallicis Ecclesiis, aliquid etiam germinis ex nostra urbe accepit, cuius fructus ex illis Ecclesiis non facile deperibit.” Schmidt, Gérard Roussel, 49, n. 2.

resurrecting king and reform, –

345

from the 1530s onward, he had been well placed to know. Roussel’s Protestant biographer, Charles Schmidt, denies Sturm’s report, asserting that Briçonnet sent them to Strasbourg. Schmidt’s pronouncements are usually sound, but in this case, given all the evidence, Sturm’s first-hand testimony that Marguerite sent them ought to be believed.

Reform Held Hostage, 1526–1530 The release of Francis I from Spain in exchange for his sons was an incomplete blessing for French evangelicals. As hard as Marguerite had tried to instill her sense of religious mission in her brother, upon his return he soon subordinated religious affairs to political concerns, chiefly to returning his sons from captivity and reestablishing control over domestic critics who had impeded the regency government while he was away. Marguerite understood the situation, and regulated her network’s pursuit of religious renewal accordingly. Arrested Reform—Sequestered Evangelicals As Francis was returning to France, Marguerite hoped to recommence the campaign to advance the gospel in France that had been stalled since the fall of 1524. All of this would depend on the good will of Francis I. Over the spring and summer of 1526, the news from court became worse and worse, forcing evangelicals to defer their hope. By autumn, it was clear that Francis would protect them, but that any sort of overt evangelical activity would not be tolerated. Marguerite’s directives to the network followed in lock-step with the quickly changing political developments. Her decision-making is revealed in a series of three letters to Sigismund von Hohenlohe from March to July 1526. When writing in March, Marguerite had guarded hopes. Hohenlohe’s previous letters had greatly encouraged her “to follow the path of truth” upon which she protested she was less far advanced than he thought. She prayed that God would commence His work in her—she who “has no merit apart from Him”—aided by Sigismund’s prayers. Having made this humble disclaimer, she gave him precise directions about what to do next. As for his desire to preach before the king, she advised him to come at the end of the month or better in mid-April, when all his “friends” (Lefèvre and the other French

346

chapter eight

refugees he had succored at Strasbourg) would be assembled. She thanks him for aiding the “servants of God,” with whom, she said, they were all united through living faith. She promised that the king would recall the exiles upon his return. This was to be the recommencement of their efforts to spread the gospel, yet she was realistic about the difficult prospects facing them and the need for discretion: I also hope that in God’s infinite mercy and with your help the Word of truth will be heard. At the start, as you may well imagine, there will be much trouble. But God is God, and He is who He is. Just as He is as invisible, just as He is incomprehensible, so too His glory and victory are wholly spiritual. He is the conqueror that the world thinks vanquished, as you know better than myself. But it is better for me to keep silent than to speak. I am longing to see you in order to learn from you. Your good cousin, Marguerite87

After Francis’s arrival (17 March 1526), she had to postpone her offer to Sigismund, indicating a general halt to their plans for evangelical preaching. On 10 May 1526 the royal council decided to break the Treaty of Madrid.88 The following day Marguerite wrote to Sigismund. She related that the report of his friends, who had since returned to court bringing news about the Reformation in Strasbourg, had increased her desire to see him. Yet despite her brother’s similar interest, which had been piqued by their accounts, the political situation demanded that they put evangelical preaching on hold.89 My dear cousin, all of your friends here deem that, for a certain reason, it is not the right moment for you to visit. As soon as we have succeeded in the matter that we are trying to accomplish for the honor of God, I will certainly let you know. If the All-Powerful One makes us worthy of it, I hope that we will be able to accomplish that which he has permitted us to begin . . . . In the meantime, if there is anything that I can do to prove

87

“J’espère aussi de l’infinie miséricorde de Dieu, qu’avec votre secours la Parole de vérité sera entendue. Au commencement, comme vous pouvez penser, il y aura bien quelque difficulté. Mais Dieu est Dieu, et il est ce qu’il est; quoiqu’il soit aussi invisible qu’incompréhensible; sa gloire et sa victoire sont choses toutes spirituelles, en sorte que celui-là est vainqueur que le monde croit vaincu, comme vous le savez mieux que moi; aussi vaut-il mieux me taire que de parler. Je désire vous voir pour recevoir de vous instruction. Vostre bonne cousine, Marguerite.” 9 March [1526], Herminjard 1, no. 171, 419; Génin 1, no. 48, 211 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 340). 88 Knecht, Renaissance Warrior, 253–254. 89 Obviously, Marguerite must have sent some message to Hohenlohe in the interval between March and May, probably with the king’s messenger to Lefèvre, telling him not to come in April.

resurrecting king and reform, –

347

my affection for you, I will do it as if for myself, putting all my confidence in Him through whom all things are possible.90

By July, Francis had committed himself to open conflict with the emperor. Having already established close relations with England in April, he had joined the League of Cognac (22 May 1526) with Rome, Venice, Florence, and the Sforza.91 All this meant that there was no end in sight to the war with Charles V, which, as Marguerite next told Hohenlohe, entailed an indefinite halt to evangelical preaching: My friend, I cannot begin to express how pained I am that the circumstances are such, as they appear to me, that your visit here would not give you the consolation you desire. It is not that the king would not gladly see you, but there is disagreement about the liberation of his children, a matter which touches him to the core. This I have explained to the letter carrier (a person with whom I could speak openly), who can give you the full details. As soon as I believe that the time is ripe, I hope to God that I will not keep you waiting.92

Invoking their “fraternal alliance . . . which arises from new birth and forms a genuine bond,” Marguerite signed off.93 Their collaboration

90 “. . . mon chere cousin, pour certaine raison, selon le jugement de tous vos amis, ce n’est pas encore le moment de venir ici. Dès que ce dont nous nous occupons pour l’honneur de Dieu se sera réalisé, je m’empresserai de vous en instruire. J’espère, si le Tout-Puissant nous en rend dignes, que nous pourrons achever ce qu’il nous a permis de commencer . . . . Et, en attenant que nous nous voyions l’un l’autre, si vous pensez qu’il y ait quelque chose où je puisse vous témoigner mon attachement, j’agirai comme pour moi-même, en mettant ma confiance en Celui par lequel toutes choses sont possibles.” Marguerite to Sigismund von Hohenlohe, 11 May [1526], Cognac, Herminjard 1, no. 175, 430–431; Génin 1, no. 49, 212 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 350). 91 Knecht, Renaissance Warrior, 253–258. 92 “Mon ami, je ne puis vous exprimer tout le chagrin que je ressens; car les circonstances me paraissent encore telles, que votre venue ici ne pourrait vous procurer la consolation que vous désirez. Ce n’est pas que le Roi ne vous vît volontiers; mais l’on ne s’entend pas encore complètement au sujet de la libération de ses enfants, à laquelle il tient autant qu’à celle de sa propre personne, comme je l’ai expliqué au présent porteur, duquel vous pourrez apprendre toute la verité; aussi m’en suis-je volontier entretenue avec lui. Mais dés que je croirai le temps propice, j’espère en Dieu que je ne vous ferai pas languir.” Marguerite to Sigismund von Hohenlohe, 5 July [1526], Herminjard 1, no. 179, 441; Génin 1, no. 51, 214 (Jourda, Répertoire, 354). 93 “J’ai pour vous tous les sentiments d’affection qu’il est possible d’éprouver pour un parent, moins encore en raison des liens périssables que forment la chair et le sang, qu’à cause de l’amour fraternel; car celui-ci résulte de la nouvelle naissance qui forme une union véritable, dans laquelle désire aussi s’unir à vous.” Herminjard 1, no. 179, 441–442. These sentiments again echo the rondeau “En aymant Dieu de cueur entierement” in the manuscript made of Marguerite quoted at the head of chapter 7. Herminjard’s text is a French translation of Hohenlohe’s German translation of the

348

chapter eight

did not end there, but Marguerite was signaling to her great chagrin that, lacking a royal stamp of approval, no evangelical preaching could occur for the foreseeable future.94 Meanwhile, Sigismund’s friends at court sent out similar reports of hopes raised and deferred. In May, Michel d’Arande, who had been newly nominated to the see of Saint-Paul-Trois-Châteaux (a tiny diocese of some thirty parishes on that Rhône between Valence and Avignon), wrote to Farel that Marguerite had enjoyed Capito’s letter to her and requested more from him.95 By June, Roussel was complaining about the heavy constraints imposed on him at court. He could not journey to Paris as he wished and had no news about their friends there, but hoped soon to be able to look into Farel’s affairs as well as other aspects of their plans in rem Evangelii. Meanwhile, Roussel was arranging matters so that Farel could return to France. However, he warned that, since their departure, many had abandoned the evangelical ranks and few remained. If matters did not improve, Roussel was considering returning to Strasbourg or perhaps seeking exile in Venice.96 In July, Pierre Toussain reported in much the same vein to Oecolampadius that he would have returned to Germania if he did not have good hope that “the gospel of Christ will soon reign in France.”97 Nevertheless, he gave a scathing report on the status of the evangelical

lost French original. The theme of brotherly bonding is clear and explicit enough to leave little doubt that it was in the original. 94 See the final section below for Sigismund’s almost unknown political dealings with France during the late 1520s as France began its entry into the Protestant politics of the Empire and Switzerland. 95 From court [Cognac?], c. 11 May 1526, Herminjard 1, no. 188, 469–470. The letter is dated 1526 in Farel’s hand. Herminjard dates the letter merely to the summer of 1526. It must have been written about 11 May, when Marguerite also wrote to Sigismund, since d’Arande speaks of Antoine Du Blet in his letter as if he were still alive (Du Blet died in late April or May, see ibid., no. 176), and d’Arande had not yet left court (on 17 June 1526, he was installed in his diocese, see ibid., no. 178). 96 “Si res non cesserit prout sub Deo speramus, mox ad vos convolabo, vel etiam Venetias. . . . Plurima nobis decoquenda fuerunt, nec pauciora supersunt.” 19 June 1526, from Blois to Strasbourg, Herminjard 1, no. 178, 438–440; 440; Schmidt, Gérard Roussel, no. 7, 192–193. 97 “Et certe Germaniam repeterem, nisi sperarem brevi regnaturum Christi Evagnelium per Galliam.” For this and the following quotations from the passage, “Fabrum sum alloquutus et Ruffum, sed certe Faber nihil habet animi. Deus confirmet eum et corroboret! Sint sapientes quantum velint, expectent, differant et dissimulent; non poterit praedicari Evangelium absque cruce. . . . Dicunt certe, ‘Nondum est tempus, nondum ventit hora!’ Et hic tamen non habemus diem neque horam. Si vos Caesarem et Ferdinandum conatibus vestris faventes haberetis, quid non faceretis? Rogate igitur Dominum pro Gallia, ut ipsa tandem sit digna Verbo!” Herminjard 1, no. 181,

resurrecting king and reform, –

349

cause at the court, “that most dangerous whore.” Praising Marguerite to high heaven, he claims that both the king and their mother were prepared to join with her in promoting the gospel of Christ, so long as the war did not delay them. Toussain laments that with the royal family so ready to be persuaded, there were no true ministers at court. Bishop Briçonnet, who had recently preached before the royal family, was a pseudo-prophet who tried to please men, one of those who talked evangelically in order to secure benefices and then stepped into the front ranks of those persecuting the ones “whom the world calls Lutherans.” As for Lefèvre, he had no courage (animus). Toussain did not blame Roussel, but did count him among those who were saying “Now is not the time, the season had not come!” But, Toussain protested, the gospel cannot be preached without the cross: “If the emperor or Ferdinand were as favorable [as Francis and Marguerite] to your efforts, what would you not have done in Germany!” Toussain had the self-righteous indignation of a man who just had suffered prison and torture for his faith. He had been drawn to France by the prospect of a land rich in learning and more open to evangelical beliefs than his native Metz, which was controlled by the conservative Lorraine (Guise) family. Yet, he too deferred his cross, refusing to take up the rich appointment Marguerite offered to him at court, even though he recognized the need for ‘true ministers,’ claiming that he was disgusted with the temporizing and hypocrisy there. Nevertheless, he stayed on quietly in France at Paris to pursue his studies. In August 1526, Roussel gave his side of the story to Farel. Guillaume had obviously heard of Toussain’s report and, as a result, had admonished Roussel for not doing more. Roussel reprimanded his former pupil: Temper your pen! . . . Do not marvel that I have done nothing until now, but rather wonder that I have not already returned to you. For if I were to have followed the advice of my friends, believe you me, I would scarcely have stayed here a week longer.98

444–448, 445 and 447; Schmidt, Gérard Roussel, no. 8, 193–196; Brief Oekolampads 1, no. 415, 567–569. 98 Inverting for effect: “Ne mireris si hactenus nihil egerim, sed potius mirare cur ad vos protinus non remearim. Nam si amicis credidissem, mihi crede, vix integram septimanam apud nostros vixissem. Scis tempora: hisce, si quid scripseris, attempera tuum stilum.” The passages translated are in italics. For this and the following quotation, “Dissimulanda nobis sunt plurima, et tot decoquenda ut, nisi adsit Dominus multum fervoris subministrans, fieri nequeat qui sim multo inferior.” Gérard Roussel to Guillaume

350

chapter eight

He explained that as Marguerite’s preacher at court he was the target of envy and his life was in great danger. Yet the Lord strengthened him and other evangelicals at court. They had begun to be treated less harshly, and there was some hope that they would be able to preach freely again. Meanwhile, Roussel told Farel that he had presented the first fruits of their translation of the Old Testament to Marguerite, who received it with great joy. He would try to have their joint project published. He and friends at court were also looking for a way to bring Farel back to France. In the meantime, Roussel was soliciting a gift of 20 écus from Marguerite for Farel, and a colleague had heard that other friends had recently sent a further 50 écus to French evangelicals at Strasbourg. Aside from these small measures, however, Roussel said, in sum, “we have to dissimulate many things.” That is exactly how the evangelicals’ situation remained for the next four years until the king’s children returned from captivity: they were able to work behind the scenes, but not to preach in the open. A Parting of Ways: Briçonnet and Farel Francis I’s captivity and return put strain on the network that led to a parting of ways. Evangelicals separated into several groups under the stress of the events from 1523 to 1526, in a sort of one-upmanship of true commitment to the gospel. The circle around Marguerite rejected Briçonnet, while Farel and his colleagues gave up hope on them.99 Briçonnet’s conservative turn. By the time Marguerite left for Madrid, her intense partnership with Briçonnet was over. Never would she take his instruction or collaborate with him again. Briçonnet did try to maintain close contact but was rebuffed. The record of their intimate relationship breaks off abruptly in November 1524. The perception left by the scribe’s half-copied line, the last known words exchanged between them, is no mere glitch in the

Farel, Amboise, 27 August 1526. Herminjard 1, no. 182, 448–451, 450; Schmidt, Gérard Roussel, no. 9, 197–198. 99 In this three part divergence of the Meaux group are seen the roots of, or at least prototypes of, three successors to the early evangelical ferment in France: a line of reformist Gallican bishops; French evangelicals who continued to seek some sort of reform according to the pure gospel; and, with Farel, the French Reformed wing of the Protestant community. See Oberman, Initia Calvini, 39–43, for the powerful effect that the persecution, which caused the evangelical ranks to split, had on the reforming outlook of Farel and Calvin.

resurrecting king and reform, –

351

source base. Whatever the immediate cause of the interruption in the transcription, if she had remained attached to Briçonnet after the Meaux debacle, why did she not have her scribe finish the job later? Marguerite dropped contact with Briçonnet in favor of direct collaboration with the group around Lefèvre. In the first place, as argued above, Marguerite likely arranged for the Fabrists to take refuge at Strasbourg before her trip to Spain without the knowledge of Briçonnet. It was certainly she who managed their return, not Briçonnet. At court, the evangelicals in Marguerite’s orbit did not let Briçonnet back into their circle. Upon hearing of Francis’s imminent return, like many other leading nobles and prelates, Briçonnet descended on the royal court in the hope of rendering valued service. Like other would-be advisors, he was excluded from the regent’s privy counsel.100 He followed the court to Cognac, where Marguerite would have heard him preach in conservative fashion, between April and July 1526.101 Toussain’s severe criticism of him likely reflected the feelings of the evangelicals Marguerite had gathered to her, for none of them speak about him in their relatively abundant correspondence from the summer of 1526.102 This breakdown in relations is easily explained. As Toussain alluded, Briçonnet had effectively capitulated to the conservatives in Paris. By early 1525, he had already helped the parlement with investigations that

100 In April 1526, Briçonnet was left to cool his heels outside the regent’s council chamber along with other great lords when Francis I returned to France. “Cependant les efforts des Rois pour réduire le personnel du Conseil ordinaire se renouvelèrent, avec un inégal succès, pendant toute la durée du XVIe siècle. Au mois de mai 1525, le Conseil réuni à Lyon autour de la régente Louise de Savoie comprenait dix-sept ou dixhuit membres; il n’en comptait plus que sept au mois d’avril suivant [1526]: l’huissier Jacques de Mailly, signalant la présence à la Cour d’un grand nombre de hauts prélats et de “gros seigneurs”, tels que les cardinaux de Lorraine et de Bourbon, les comtes de Saint-Pol et de Vaudémont, les évêques de Meaux et de Lisieux, ajoutait que la porte du Conseil leur demeurait constamment fermée.” Noël (Joseph-Marie) Valois, Étude historique sur le conseil du roi, introduction à l’inventaire des arrêtes du conseil d’État (1886), cii–ciii, citing AN X1A 1529, fol. 211r (17 April 1526). 101 See further Veissière, Autour du Guillaume Briçonnet, 37–54, supplementing Veissière, Guillaume Briçonnet, 379: “Voyage: le 3 avril 1526, on signale la présence récente de G. Briçonnet auprès de la cour dans la région de Bayonne, à l’occasion de la délivrance de François Ier. AN X1A, 1529, fol. 210 r–v, 3 avril 1526 (J. K. Farge).” 102 Toussain criticizes Briçonnet as a weakling, in comparison with Marguerite’s spiritual commitment. Guillaume Briçonnet had preached very conservatively at court and was no longer a true evangelical, one of the ones whom Roussel said had slipped from their ranks: “. . . illic [court] nihil videam synceritatis, et omnes quaerunt quae sua sunt, non quae Jesu Christi. Episcopus Melden[sis] dicitur illic parum syncere tractasse Verbum diebus superioribus, plus studens hominibus placere quam Deo. Et habet Aula multos tales pseudoprophetas.” Herminjard 1, no. 181, 446.

352

chapter eight

led to the arrest of Jacques Pauvan and Matthieu Saulnier as well as the sentencing of Jean Le Clerc and other commoners from Meaux. After the Fabrists’ flight to Strasbourg, he had helped with the prosecution of other heretics at Meaux. In December 1525, he had sought to reassure his critics by investigating the faith of his flock in the town and marché of Meaux. A year later, in December 1526, well after Marguerite’s protection had recommenced, he formalized his capitulation by coming to an agreement with Pierre Lizet, the Faculty of Theology, and the Franciscans of Meaux.103 Over the next few years, he denounced several other heretics. In 1528, one of them burned at the stake. Such severity, for there were relatively few executions for heresy during the 1520s,104 forced artisans who were committed to the evangelical cause to flee the diocese. In 1528, a foulon from Meaux, then living at Troyes, was investigated for his proselytizing. Other agitators from Meaux were reported in the nearby region at Soissons. Again in December 1530, Briçonnet had another group of laypersons in his diocese charged with heresy, resulting in their banishment.105 According to her leading biographer, Marguerite’s relationship with Briçonnet did not terminate abruptly but cooled gradually during her voyage to Spain and upon her return, as her new marriage preoccupied her.106 This interpretation does not stand up to scrutiny. As was obvious to evangelicals in 1526, following the debacle of the Meaux reform, which had been the principal focus of their relationship, Briçonnet had become a persecutor instead of protector of the evangelical cell at Meaux that had grown strong during the days of his reforming experiment. Farel’s defection. If Briçonnet turned coat because he thought evangelical reform had led to evil results, Farel gave up hope because, in his view, it had not gone far enough and was dead in its tracks. If the network’s program may be likened to a car, Farel was the equivalent of a back-seat driver: after 1523, he did not have his hands on the wheel 103 On 1 December 1526, Lizet reported to the Faculty of Theology that Briçonnet was willing to come to an amicable settlement, i.e., take the advice of the Sorbonne. Farge, Registre 1, session 180A, 158–159. 104 See William Monter, Judging the French Reformation: Heresy Trials by SixteenthCentury Parlements (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999). 105 “Guillaume Briçonnet et le procureur du roi au Parlement accusent du crime d’hérésie un certain Pierre Vaneau, prêtre, Thomas de Nesle, . . . ung nommé Françoys, serviteur de la vefue feu Thomas Patron, et Antoine Le Moine. Ils sont tous par la suite bannis du royaume à jamais, leurs meuble et biens confisqués.” Veissière, Autour du Guillaume Briçonnet, 37–54, to complement Guillaume Briçonnet, 396. 106 Jourda, Marguerite, 92.

resurrecting king and reform, –

353

or the best view of the road, but he gave plenty of advice about how to proceed. Farel did not just give advice, he demanded action. He may well have felt that nobody was at the wheel, since many of those whom he had left behind kept turning to him for prayers and practical help. Late in 1526, Farel’s incessant injunctions ceased after Roussel extended an offer, if not to jump into the driver’s seat at court or Paris, at least to ride shotgun from just over the border at Sedan, where as a court preacher to the powerful de La Marck family and with a printing press at his disposal, he might attempt to change the situation in France. Roussel extended this promising offer to Farel in December.107 The de La Marck family was an important military dynasty in the service of Francis I, whose members had Lutheran tendencies.108 Their lands lay just over the border in Lorraine, north and west of Metz. Even after his brief, failed attempt to evangelize in the latter city, Farel had remained intensely interested in the possibility of reforming the region and stayed in close contact with Pierre Toussain, Nicolas Dex [d’Esch], and the rest of the evangelical circle there.109 Thus, had he accepted, Farel would have known his employers and been back in a field he longed to harvest. Since Farel was a marked man in France and could not be brought home, the de La Marck family’s promise to put a printing press at his disposal would have given him the means to evangelize his homeland, for whose reformation he still entertained hopes in the summer of 1526.110 However, Roussel stipulated as a condition for accepting that Farel guard his tongue for a time on controversial issues like the Eucharist. This was not a new request and throughout Farel’s career his fondest allies would tell him to moderate his zeal. The offer was so good that even the normally skeptical Pierre Toussain gave his hearty endorsement.111 We do not have Farel’s response to Roussel’s offer, only his self-justifying annotation, written years later on Roussel’s letter. He recalls that he did not take up the post in Sedan because he had already started to

107 Marguerite had also been using her agent, Jacques Groslot, to secure funds for Farel in a disputed inheritance case. See Jourda, Répertoire, no. 361.1 [361]; Herminjard 1, 297 and n. 17; and Scheurer 1, no. 165, 332–334. 108 Roussel’s letter to Farel testifies to their evangelical leanings. 109 For the evangelical cell at Metz, see chapter 7, at note 84. 110 Farel would uses Vingle’s presses at Neuchâtel for this same purpose from 1533–1535 with Antoine Marcourt, Pierre Viret, and others, prefiguring Geneva’s rise as the missionary printing capital to France. 111 Toussain to Farel, 17 December 1526, Herminjard 1, no. 131, 312–313.

354

chapter eight

preach in Aigle, a substantial town in the Bernese hinterland. He adds with satisfaction that, two years after starting his work there, the town passed over to the Reform. That Aigle was reformed rather less through Farel’s preaching than by fiat, when Bern adopted the Reformation, is the lesser of two distortions in his explanation. As late as October 1526, he had been at his wit’s end in Strasbourg about where he should go next. As related above, Roussel had been looking for a way to bring him back to France throughout the summer. When Farel decided to try his hand at reforming Aigle, he had no official mandate from Bern to preach. He began by posing as schoolteacher, giving free lessons as a cover for his illicit attempt to proselytize the town. In fact, by the time Roussel’s offer would have arrived in late December or early January, he was already in trouble for his first few clandestine sermons. For whatever reason he rejected Roussel’s ample offer—it may well have been the stipulation that he temper his tongue in denouncing the false practices of the church—Farel chose a harder, more obscure path that preserved his freedom of action. In so doing, he effectively turned his back on France. His hardening of heart towards his homeland is reflected in his letter to Capito of May 1529. Having heard that Pierre Toussain had been called from Paris to Metz, Farel ardently supported the move, since he believed that Toussain would reap a much more abundant harvest for God there than in France. His homeland would remain barren, he believed, as long as Francis I remained alienated from the gospel.112 After Roussel’s offer of December 1526, evangelicals in France and Farel stopped regular correspondence. Farel even dropped out of contact with Pierre Toussain, whom he continued to hold in high regard, until the former canon of Metz eventually migrated from France to Switzerland in 1531, after which time they became close comrades. From 1527 onwards, rather than brothers in arms, the relationship of Farel and other expatriate ministers with their former brothers in France resembled that of distant cousins who kept in occasional touch and bore each other good will but had little in common. With 112 “Audivimus Petrum Tossanum evocatum esse à Metensibus. Gauderemus si fructus aliquid proferret illic, Christum praedicans. Nam apud Francos quid promovere possit non satis video, sub tam insano capite qui passus est interdici plebi Novo Testamento, ut nulla supersit via veritatis agnoscendae, neque libris, neque aliis commonstrantibus, Pater novit quae in sua habet potestate momenta. Huic nemo resistere poterit, quin sua perficiatur voluntas, quam plenius cognoscere det suis, eamque perpetuo sequi!” Herminjard 2, no. 257, 177–180; 179–180.

resurrecting king and reform, –

355

that distancing of their relationship, the most important set of sources for understanding the inner life of the evangelical network in France dries up. Thereafter, the story of Marguerite’s network can only be told from scraps of evidence, gleaned from the reports of friends and enemies outside their circle. Rarely do their voices rise above the wall of silence enveloping their decisions or are their hands revealed from behind the protective cloak of dissimulation, which enabled them to survive and continue to act. The Evangelical Network Underground After 1526, what was left for Marguerite and the network to do? Tantalizing strings of evidence indicate that she fostered the network as well as she was able, readying them for the day when they could act more openly. As the ever-changing political events kept deferring the date that Francis’s children would be returned, the network returned to a cold war against its domestic enemies and secret cooperation with the friends that remained to them abroad. This concealed campaign entailed an interconnected program of building the network, promoting the evangelical cause through print, and establishing the network’s political clout as France became involved in the beginnings of Europewide Reformation politics. These three tracks of the network’s development in the late 1520s can best be described by concentrating on a notable example of each: for the network’s reestablishment, Marguerite’s attempt to rehabilitate the lives and reputations of Jean Guibert, Pierre Caroli, and Lefèvre d’Étaples; for their clandestine print campaign, her intervention to save Louis de Berquin; and for their entry into Reformation politics, her cultivation of the Du Bellay brothers. A number of examples will be clustered around these major cases to sketch the fuller profile of her network’s years of patient preparation. Re-knitting the Network The Sentence de frere Jehan Guibert hermite de Livry is a strange little pamphlet printed by Simon Du Bois probably sometime shortly after 29 July 1527, when the sentence was passed.113 The one remaining copy has

113

The complete title reads, Sentence de frere Jehan Guibert hermite de Livry. Tous

356

chapter eight

attracted almost no scholarly attention.114 Although it is one of Du Bois’ famous anonymous tracts, it is not a religious book in the traditional sense. Quite simply, the text is a reprint of the final sentence issued in the heresy case of Jean Guibert. Judicial documents—even including edicts by the Parlement of Paris or the king—were rarely published in that period. Why then did the budding evangelical printer Simon Du Bois indulge in publishing a little piece of eye-numbing legalese? The case of Jean Guibert was a cause célèbre in its day. Guibert’s long ordeal in court had begun during the conservatives’ first onslaught against heresy in 1523. He had been indicted along with the Meaux group and Berquin. Thereafter, he was sentenced, he appealed, he was sentenced again, and, as some heard it (the rumor was false), he burned at the stake.115 Guibert and Lefèvre had known each other at least as early as 1505, when Faber had held the hermit up as a shining example of the contemplative life.116 Lefèvre’s move to Meaux put him next door to Guibert at Livry. What their relations were at that point is unknown.117 They would appear to have been close, especially if as seems likely the ‘recluse’ whom Marguerite mentioned to her brother when sending the Scriptures to him in captivity was Jean Guibert. If so, Marguerite was bringing his case to the king’s ear surreptitiously. As the pamphlet relates, in 1527 in response to a second appeal, yet another special commission set up by Cardinal Duprat had found Guibert not guilty. This was a victory not just for the hermit, who had been incarcerated since 1523, but for all the “Lutherans” of Meaux with whom he had been identified. Publishing his sentence amounted to advertising their exoneration for heresy. Moreover, Guibert’s prosecutors were chastised, being sentenced to pay three-quarters of the trial’s cost.118

mes os diront Seigneur Dieu qui est ce qui est semblable à toi? Qui delivre le paoure de la main des puissantz son indigen et paoure de ceusz qui le deschirent. Pseaul. xxxviii. 114 See Higman, Piety, S 11, and W. G. Moore, La Réforme allemande et la littérature française: Recherches sur la notoriété de Luther en France, Publications de la Faculté des Lettres de l’Université de Strasbourg 52 (Strasbourg: Publication de la Faculté des Lettres, 1930), no. 199, 48, and Imbart, Origines 3, 210 and n. 2, for brief mentions. 115 Weiss claims that Guibert was burned in 1526, three years after his first trial in 1523. See “Guillaume Farel,” BSHPF (1919), 200 n. 2, in which he cites Guibert’s case from AN X2A 78, fol. 3r and X 4873, fol. 41. 116 See Rice, Prefatory Epistles, no. 45, 142, and 144 n. 9. 117 Veissière, Guillaume Briçonnet, 236. 118 The prosecutors obviously resisted paying for years, for Francis I gifted the trial fees to two servants in 1534: CAF 2, no. 7230, 715: “Don à François de Marconnay et à Claude de Thouyn, gentilshommes de la vénerie, de 500 livres parisis, montant d’une

resurrecting king and reform, –

357

Had Marguerite been involved in fixing this outcome? While no direct evidence exists of this, the details of his final sentence hint at multiple complicities leading back to Marguerite. Among the judges who acquitted Guibert were three noteworthy figures: Jean de Selve, abbot of Turpenay; René Du Bellay; and the abbot of Saint-Marc (Saint-Médard) in Soissons. Another Jean de Selve, first president of the Parlement of Paris, has already been encountered above as the mouthpiece of Marguerite’s miracle in Madrid. The Abbot Jean de Selve was, it seems, a close relation. René Du Bellay was a member of the Parlement of Paris. Marguerite’s close collaboration with his brothers Jean and Guillaume will be taken up below. The last figure, the abbot of Saint-Marc, was Jean Olivier, uncle of François Olivier, whom Marguerite would name as her chancellor of Alençon in 1530 and promote through the ranks of the royal administration to the high office of chancellor of France (1545). Guibert’s salvation was part of Marguerite’s concerted campaign to save everyone in her circle. A few days before the final sentence in Guibert’s case, some adherents of the Faculty of Theology saw fit to make a notarized deposition about the suspicious activity of the abbot of Saint-Marc of Soissons. They reported having seen the abbot ask the papal legate for a blanket exoneration from the charge of heresy for Caroli and Lefèvre.119 Why the Faculty of Theology deemed this action suspicious is no mystery, for the abbot had been named in January as

amende à laquelle ont été condamnés Jean Guibert, Guillaume de La Châtaigneraye et Jean de La Maille. Saint-Germain-en-Laye, 14 juillet 1534.” 119 [26/27 July 1527]: “A la requête de la Faculté de théologie en l’Université de Paris, représentée par Jean Tannel, prêtre, grand bedeau de ladite Faculté, . . . Jacques Mynet, prêtre, écolier étudiant en ladite Faculté, et Bernard Olleric, banquier, à Paris, déclarent “que ung jour ou deux après le jour Sainct Jehan Baptiste dernier passé . . . , eulx estans en la court du prieuré du Temple, . . . auquel lieu . . . Monsr. le cardinal appellé des Medecis, et que on disoit estre lors legat en France, estoit lors logé, . . . ilz veisrent illecques ung gros moyne, que on disoit estre abbé, . . . auquel auditeur icelluy abbé demandoit une provision, pour et ou nom de Fabri et Charoly, pour avoir juges pour congnoistre de certaines charges dont lesd. Caroli et Fabri avoient esté chargez par indormation que led. Abbé disoit avoir esté faicte contre eulx, et parse que lesd. Actestans oyrent led. Abbé (parler audit auditeur et qu’il sollicitoit pour lesd. Fabri et Caroly et qu’il leur sembla que lad. Mathiere estoit audieuse, se retirent; et, ce faict, en sorans dud. Temple, led. Maistre Jacques demanda à deux des diverses foix, le nom dud. Abbé, qui ne luy en voullurent riens dire; et led. Olleric, quelques jours après veit et recongnut led. Abbé au palais, en la salle, et demanda lors aux gens qui le suyvoient qui il estoit l’abbé de Sainct Marc de Soissons [Jean Olivier].” Ernest Coyecque, Recueil d’actes notairiés relatifs à l’histoire de Paris et de ses environs au XVIe siècle, vol. 1, Histoire Générale de Paris (Paris, 1905–1923), no. 826, 167 (emphasis added).

358

chapter eight

one of the new juges délégués.120 At the king’s request, the old foursome of heresy judges, two of them staunch conservatives from the Faculty of Theology, had been relieved of their duties in favor of a reconstituted commission dominated by the king’s trusted men, including bishops Michel Boudet of Langres, who helped quash the investigation of Lefèvre et alii in 1523, Claude de Longwy of Mâcon, in whose diocese d’Arande had preached in 1524, and Luigi di Canossa of Bayeux, Marguerite’s old friend.121 Jean Olivier’s association with the royal court’s new protectionist regime gave these agents of the Faculty of Theology good reason to be alarmed. By the middle of 1527, the faculty had over a year’s worth of evidence to justify their suspicion of Marguerite and her agents. In late 1526, as related above, Berquin had been forcibly liberated from the parlement’s jail by the king’s men at Marguerite’s instigation. So too, in the spring of 1526, Clément Marot, who was a member of Marguerite’s household and had been charged with heresy in her absence, gained his freedom due to her intervention.122 At the end of 1526, Marguerite arrived with the court at Paris. This was too late to save the preacher from Meaux, Jacques Pauvan, who had already been executed in August as a recidivist. Shortly before 1 January 1527, however, Aimé Meigret was released from jail. The circumstances of his liberation are unknown, but the date of his release and Marguerite’s championing of him in late 1524 suggests her intervention.123 Meigret then fled to Germany, where he died by early 1528. In March 1527, Marguerite had asked for copies of all the Faculty of Theology’s condemnations against heretics “since the

120 See below for the conservatives’ belief that the new juges délégués were instruments of Lutherans at court who had devised the new panel. 121 Fraikin, Nonciatures, A Appendix XIII, 428–433: Bull of Clement VII, 25 January 1527. 122 The circumstances of both Marot’s arrest and release are not known. See OP 1, LXX; and Gérard Defaux, Le poète en son jardin: étude sur Clément Marot et “l’Adolescence clémentine,” Collection Unichamps 51 (Paris: Honoré Champion, 1996), 92–93, 100. 123 As Zwingli heard it from Capito, Marguerite was responsible for the liberation of Berquin and Meigret. “Iam quod scribamus, nihil serii occurrit; nam de ecclesiis Galliarum ab Oecolampadio quiddam, opinor, accepisti. Domina Dux Alanconiae concionatorem habet Christianum et laterum in aula. Gerardus Rufus ob fratrum preces aulica tedia devorat, aliqui concionator verbi futurus Blesis, quae est egregia urbs regni. Berchinus et Macrinus liberabuntur. Rex verbo favet. Metensis cardinalis non repugnat, cui aiunt connubium ineundem cordi esse.” 1 January 1527, ZW 9, no. 568, 4–5; Herminjard 2, no. 190, 3–5.

resurrecting king and reform, –

359

beginning of the Luther affair.”124 Her reason for asking was no doubt to provide her network with ammunition to combat at the faculty. In the summer of 1526, Roussel had told Farel that Lefèvre was completely absorbed in responding to Beda.125 In early 1526, the syndic of the faculty had published Beda’s annotations against Lefèvre and Erasmus. Though the royal court had forbidden its sale, the damage to Lefèvre’s reputation had been done. Marguerite seems to have been looking for a way to redress the balance. In July 1527, the royal court sent twelve propositions taken from Beda’s attack on Lefèvre and Erasmus to the University of Paris for examination.126 So too, after being freed in 1526, Louis de Berquin had pursued a course of revenge against the “Théologastres,” about which more will be said below. As well as protecting her network from legal action, she found them important positions. Lefèvre became Francis I’s royal librarian and tutor to his remaining children, his third son Charles as well his daughter Margaret. Pierre Caroli she made curate of Alençon, entrusting him with the revision of poor relief in the town.127 She also aided Caroli in his long campaign to be reinstated in the Paris Faculty of Theology.128 As related above, d’Arande had been made bishop of Saint-Paul-TroisChâteaux soon after Francis’s return, and Roussel took his place as one of her almoners. In 1529, she secured for Roussel the abbey of Clairac in her southern territories.129 Pierre Toussain and Guillaume Farel rejected the positions offered to them in 1526. For her secretary, Clément Marot, she obtained a place in the king’s household in 1527,130 just as she had

124

Farge, Registre 1, 165: 188 B, mention (appendix A, no. 10023). “Salutat vos Peregrinus, qui totus in tractando Beda occupatur, sed modestius quam plerique vellent.” Roussel to Farel, 27 August 1526, Herminjard 1, no. 182, 448–451, 450–451; Schmidt, Gérard Roussel, no. 9, 197–198. 126 9 July 1527, CAF 1, no. 2702, 512, citing Du Boulay, Historia universitatis, vol. 6, 200. 127 See Marguerite’s request to Francis I for help with reforming the poor relief system in Alençon. Jourda, Répertoire, no. 357.1 [374]. On her social application of “faith active through charity” see L. Boutry, “Les chartes de charité de Henri et de Marguerite de Navarre,” Revue internationale de sociologie 8 (1900), 867–876. See Vauzelles’ dedication of a work to her on poor relief, Police subsidaire à celle qui si infinie multitude des povres survenuz à Lyon sur le Rosne, l’an mil cinq cens XXXI. Avec les graces que les povres en rendent à Dieu et à messieurs de l’eglise et aulx notables de la ville (Toulouse, 1531) as in appendix B I. 128 See the new letter dated [before 30] September 1528, cited in appendix A, no. 10027. 129 Jourda, Répertoire, no. 508. 130 Defaux, Le poète en son jardin, 100, 113–117. 125

360

chapter eight

for the father of another of her poet-secretaries, Victor Brodeau, who would publish evangelical verse dedicated to her later in his life.131 Marguerite also started making appointments in the university and convents of Bourges, which was the capital of her duchy of Berry, that would help it become a major center of jurisprudence as well as evangelicalism in France. In 1529, Andrea Alciato, a leading jurist in Europe, came to teach law attracted by an enormous salary, reported to have been between 600 and 1000 écus (more than 1200 to 2000 livres tournois). He was soon joined by Pierre de Rébuffe, a jurist with Lutheran tendencies, as well as Melchior Wolmar, a noted scholar of Greek and Latin, who brought his young student Theodore Beza with him and would go on to have a lasting influence on another student he taught at Bourges, John Calvin.132 In 1530, she tried to secure the abbey of Issoudun in Berry for a protégé despite the monks’ right of election.133 Similarly, in her southern territories she sought the nomi-

131 See Victor Brodeau, Les louanges de Jesus Nostre saulueur (s.l.n., 1540), which is dedicated to Marguerite (un-catalogued letter, appendix A, no. 10066); and Victor Brodeau, “Poésies,” ed. H. M. Tomlinson, TLF 312 (Geneva: Droz, 1982); and Pierre Jourda, “Un disciple de Marot: Victor Brodeau,” Revue d’Histoire littéraire de la France (1921): 30–59, 208–228. 132 Alciato had been at Avignon before Bourges and was in contact with the uncle of Antoine Oraison, the young prelate who translated Luther’s De la préparation à la mort for Marguerite in 1524. See Alciato’s letter to Boniface Amerbach, Avignon, 26 May 1528, AK 3, no. 1261, 326–329; 327, ll. 50–55: “Novissime id argumenti assumere coactus sum, ut veteri amico Oresono, Rmi legati sororio, qui tum [Greek: monomachesth[d]ai emelle], morem gererem. Caeterum non censeo huiusmodi opusculum in presentia edendum, quod in eo multa sunt, quae ad controversias [Greek: toutōn mōrōn Basileōn] pertinent, subvereorque, ne, si aliter in eo quicquam pronuntiatum reperiatur, quam alterutri eorum sederit, auctori noxiae sit.” Allen 8, no. 2296, 398 n. identifies “Antonio Aurisonio” [Oresono] with Oraison. On his nephew, Antoine Honoré d’Oraison, see Robert Marichal, “Antoine d’Oraison, premier traducteur français de Luther,” BHR 9 (1947), 78–108, for his translation of Luther’s De la préparation à la mort for the year 1524. For the influence of Alciato on Calvin, see Oberman, Initia Calvini, 37, with references to further literature. For the teachers and prelates hired by Marguerite at the end of the 1520s, see: Louis-Hector Chandru de Raynal, Histoire de Berry depuis les temps les plus anciens jusqu’en 1789, 3 vols. (Bourges: Vermeil, 1844–1847), vol. 3, 305, 368, and 380; Le Vicomte de Brimont, Le XVIe siècle et les guerres de la Réforme en Berry, 2 vols. (Paris: Alphonse Picard et fils, 1905), vol. 1, 139–150, whose claims are not always substantiated; and Françoise Michaud-Fréjaville, “Marguerite d’Angoulême, reine de Navarre, duchesse de Berry, ‘laquelle a fort humainement traité ses sujets de Berry’ ” in Marguerite de Navarre, 1492–1992: Actes du colloque international de Pau (1992), ed. Nicole Cazauran and James Dauphiné (Mont-de-Marsan: Editions InterUniversitaires, 1995), 52. 133 Génin 1, no. 86, 262–264, and no. 87, 264–265 (Jourda, Répertoire, nos. 481 and 486). Thus, Marguerite continued the crown’s policy of undermining the right of

resurrecting king and reform, –

361

nations to the sees of Sarlat134 and Albi in favor of two protégés.135 The latter nomination put her in conflict with the chancellor, Cardinal Duprat, who had his eye on the diocese.136 The most important of her interventions in episcopal nominations was in favor of Jean Du Bellay. It will be discussed below. Marguerite’s efforts to promote her candidates to these positions initially brought few results for the network’s evangelical campaign. For the period 1526–1530, there is no evidence of evangelical preaching at Paris, Meaux, Bourges, Alençon, or Lyon. A reference to Sébiville’s continued preaching at Sisteron during Advent of 1526 is the last information known about him.137 As for d’Arande at Saint-Paul-TroisChâteaux, in 1528 Capito described him as an upstanding prelate138 and the bishop is known to have held a diocesan synod in 1529, but, for lack of records, little else can be said about his episcopacy except that he retired in 1539.139 The only evangelical preaching of any sort was at Blois. In January 1527, Capito reported to Zwingli that Roussel capitular election in those dioceses and abbeys still enjoying it under the Concordat. In 1531, the pope would extend the Concordat, granting Francis I the right of election in all major benefices. Thereafter, he issued instructions to members of his Grand Conseil about the proper procedure for nominating candidates. See BnF Clairambault 334, fols. 238r–239v: “Lettre de François Ier aux conseil au sujet des nominations ecclésiastiques, 1 avril 1532.” 134 In 1530, Marguerite tried to gratify Montmorency by supporting the nomination of one of his favorites to a see in her territories; see Saulnier 1976 and Jourda, Répertoire, nos. 445, 445.1, 446, 446.1–446.4). 135 In 1528, Marguerite sought the nomination of Albi for Gabriel de Gramont, bishop of Tarbes, see Génin 2, no. 53, 100–101 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 420). Marguerite had just asked Gabriel’s relative Charles de Gramont, bishop of Aire, to serve as Henri de Navarre’s lieutenant governor over Aquitaine [“Guyenne”], see Archives municipales de Bayonne Registres gascons (Bayonne, 1898), vol. 2, 524; mentioned in BnF N.a.fr. 23245, Fichier Picot, no. 679 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 415). 136 Duprat, Glanes et regains, 24–25. 137 See chapter 7, note 39. 138 Capito’s acclaim of d’Arande in his 1528 dedication of In Hoseam prophetam V. F. Capitonis commentarius (Strasbourg, 1528; for text, dated 22 March 1528) may simply have been based on memory and been pure flattery. Capito could however have had some more recent information, since Marguerite’s circle and the Strasbourg group remained in some contact throughout 1526–1530, on which see below. See further, for a full translation of text and notes, Olivier Millet, “Wolfgang Fabricius Capiton à Marguerite de Navarre (1528): Dédicace de In Hoseam prophetam commentarius” in Le livre et la Réforme, ed. Rodolphe Peter and Bernard Roussel (Bordeaux: Société des bibliophiles de Guyenne, 1987), 201–216; and, for partial translation and notes, Herminjard 2, no. 227, 119–123. 139 Louis-Anselme Boyer de Sainte-Marthe, Histoire de l’église cathédrale de SaintPaul-Trois-Châteaux, avec une chronologie de tous les évêques qui l’ont gouvernée (Avignon: François-Sebastien Offray, 1710), 213–218; see 216–217 for d’Arande’s synod.

362

chapter eight

would soon preach in this important city.140 Later that year, Matthieu Malingre, a Dominican and future Reformed pastor in Switzerland, gave heterodox sermons there on the epistles of St. Paul, which Clément Marot attended.141 That is the last report of evangelical preaching for these years. All in all, Francis I’s religious policy during the long period of his children’s captivity continued to disappoint evangelicals’ hopes. Late in 1526, network members became hopeful when they heard that Francis would call a council to settle the religious controversy. Farel reported from Strasbourg to Nicolas Dex (d’Esch) at Metz, based on information he had from Roussel, that Francis I would assemble the churches of France to ensure that evangelicals were no longer persecuted and allowed to preach. Farel put this development down to Marguerite’s influence: “The Marguerite is as bright as ever and she had preserved in the strength (virtue) that the sun of justice has given to her.”142 Those councils were long delayed. When they finally met in 1528 under the leadership of Chancellor Duprat and François de Tournon, their main purpose was to obtain a grant of four ‘tenths’ of their income from the clergy for Francis’s war effort, which the pope had authorized.143 As a 140 1 January 1527, ZW 9, no. 568, 4–6; Herminjard 2, no. 190, 3–5, as quoted in note 123 above. 141 See further, Marot, OP 1, XV, LXXXIII–LXXXIX, and 613; Robert Sauzet, Mendiants et Réformes: Les réguliers mendiants acteurs du changement religieux dans le royaume de France, 1480–1560 (Tours: Publications de L’Université de Tours, 1994): “Malingre (Thomas), O.P., ou Maliques de Morvilliers. Ami de Clément Marot, en 1527, il prononce à Blois des sermons hérétiques détestant publiquement la messe,” citing Documents pour servir à l’histoire de l’ordre de St. Dominique, no. 29, 13; A. Guerrier, in Histoire de Blois, 1988, 99; Samuel Mours, Le protestantisme en France au XVIe siècle, 1959, 56. Upon reaching Switzerland, Malingre was the author or editor of at least eleven collections of religious songs and verse. See Higman, Piety, C 95, C 99, C 101, C 102, and M 5–M 10. One of these, L’epistre envoyee à Clement Marot, welcomed the famed poet to Switzerland during his second exile, testifying to their long friendship. See Higman, Piety, M 5. 142 “Le roy a propousé d’assembler ceux de France, pour terminer aussy ces questions, ou pour ne plus chasser ceux qui portent l’Évangile, lesquelz il veut qui’ilz soient ouys, et pour tout rompre. La marguerite est tousjours claire et garde la vertu que le soleil de justice luy a donné; . . . Il n’y a une au près de la marguerite que luyt, et est mise au descouvert, prenant son lustre de l’or de la Saincte Escripture, la quelle est annuncée par elle purement; et j’espoire que plusieurs autres seront aussy enchassés en ce bel or et nétiés et acoustrés: ce que devons prier, car ce que vous escriptz n’est pas affin que les adversaires le sachent et métent peyne de leur empescher, mais pour la consolations des fidèles, affin qu’ilz prient Nostre Seigneur que sa saincte Parolle aye lieu et par tout soyt adnuncée.” 16 October 1526, Herminjard 5, no. 182a, 398–411, 403–404. 143 As reported by Driart in February 1527, papal bulls were published requiring the tenths to be paid to Francis I on pain of excommunication, privation of benefices, and prison; see Driart, 122–123.

resurrecting king and reform, –

363

reward, the councils were allowed under Duprat’s prompting to pass a series of strong edicts against the Lutherans. The outcomes of the councils of 1528 reprised those of 1522 and Louise’s policy during the Regency: in exchange for nominal royal support in the battle against heresy, the clergy granted Francis I both gold and obedience. All the while, the punishment of heretics and other religious criminals was set on slow-burn.144 Leaving aside the lesser charges and punishments,145 the list of those executed is still impressive. In September 1525, a young lawyer went to the stake at Paris for being a Lutheran.146 The next year, a young man from Auxerre was executed for stealing a monstrance from the parish church of the arch-heresy hunter Guillaume Duchesne, a crime that prompted in addition an expiatory procession.147 On 28 August 1526, Jacques Pauvan of Meaux perished in flames for

144 In his monumental study of heresy trials in France, William Monter makes a debatable distinction between the execution of “true Protestant martyrs” and others guilty of religious crimes. See Monter, Judging the French Reformation, 58–64. 145 Many of these cases have been related above in relationship to the Meaux group and Briçonnet’s actions after 1526. 146 17 September 1525: “L’an mil cinq cens vingt cinq, un jeune filz d’environ vingt et huict ans, licentié ès loix, nommé maistre Guillaume Hubert ou Joubert, filz de l’advocat du Roi à la Rochelle, demeurant à Paris pour aprendre la practique, après avoir esté prisonnier environ quinze jours seullement, le samedy dix septiesmes fevrier, [Lalanne: veille des Brandons], fut par le bourreau mené en un tombereau devant l’eglise Nostre Dame de Paris et devant l’eglise de Saincte Geneviefve, par arest de la cour, où il fist amende honnorable, criant mercy à Dieu, à la Vierge Marie et à madame Saincte Geneviefve; et ce pour avoir tenu la doctrine de Luther et mesdit de Dieu, de Nostre Dame et des sainctz et sainctes du Paradis. De là fut mené à la place Maubert où il eust la langue percée, puis fust estranglé et bruslé, mourant neantmoins bon repentant et recongnoissant bien avoir deservi la mort.” Bourrilly, Bourgeois, 363 (emphasis added). Monter does not consider this as an instance of an execution for Lutheran belief, but does count the death of Denis Rieux, who was guilty of “saying that the Virgin Mary had no more power than an image that he held in his hand and then broke.” Monter’s basis for distinguishing the two cases so neatly is not clear. Prima facie, the two cases seem similar and any formal distinction would have to be substantiated with evidence from their trial records. See Monter, Judging the French Reformation, 61–63. 147 Since the ‘thief ’ and his companion, who escaped, targeted the parish church of a public champion of orthodoxy and the object stolen was a monstrance for the host, they were in effect committing an act of iconoclasm as well as theft. One would like to know if they intended it. See Bourrilly, Bourgeois, 373–374. Cf. Monter, Judging the French Reformation, 61–62. The thief was not a “boatman” as per Monter, but “un jeune homme d’environ vingt quatre ans, natif et marié à Auxerre, et bastelier.” The boatman was Denis Rieux of Meaux in 1528 (Monter, 63). Other religious criminals escaped. Another observer reported about this time that a mouse stole the consecrated host during Mass and managed to elude pursuit (No doubt the mouse communed unworthily). Contemporaries evidently were highly sensitive to perceived sacrilege. See Cronique Françoys Ier, 81–82.

364

chapter eight

his recidivism.148 On 4 March 1527, a protonotaire (an administrative official in the church) from Anjou went to the stake, where he was strangled and then burned along with his trial records.149 In December of that year, a minor noble named de la Tour burned for heresy at Paris.150 In 1528, “Lutherans or some other enemies of the Catholic faith” destroyed a statue of the Virgin and Child in Paris, inciting Francis I to make an expiatory procession and replace the damaged Madonna and child with a magnificent replica in silver. Had the culprits been caught, they surely would have burned. In December, Denis Rieux, a heretical boatman from Meaux, was executed.151 The following year, 1529, a new edict against blasphemy was cried on the streets of Paris.152 In August 1529, a draper was sentenced to death for swearing by the Virgin while playing dice. In May 1530, there were executions and other public punishments nearly every day, many for crimes of heresy, including several heretics from Ivry (Livry) and Meaux who denied purgatory and the intercession of the saints.153 Against these executions, chroniclers from Paris juxtaposed several miraculous interventions by the Virgin Mary and the saints. In 1528, a statue of the Virgin vandalized by heretics resuscitated a stillborn child.154 In 1528, a criminal sentenced to death who was devoted to the Virgin, though he had been hung in due form, was miraculously preserved by her, “quod pie creditur.”155 The people declared 1530 to be the year of miracles, because Mary and other saints, in response to repeated prayers and processions, saved them from a series of natural

148

Lalanne, Bourgeois, 291–292; Driart, 120. Although Pierre Driart does not specifically say that the prothonotarie was guilty of heresy, the manner of his execution strongly suggests it. See Driart, 124. 150 Monter, Judging the French Reformation, table of heresy executions on 251. 151 Bourrilly, Bourgeois, 364. See also notes 146 and 147 above. 152 Bourrilly, Bourgeois, 365. 153 During a plague scare, heresy suspects from Meaux were summarily executed: “Durant ce temps [c. 5 May 1530], fut faicte fort grosses justices de plusieurs mauvais garçons prisonniers, tant pour la multitude estant ès prisons que parce que il estoit bruit que la peste se estoit misse à la Conciergerie du Palays. Il n’estoit jour que il n’y en eust de panduz et estranglez et les aultres bruslez. Aussy, durant ce temps, furent faict pugnitions de quelques habitens de Meaulx qui tenoient l’erreur de Luther et aultres aussy frapez de pareille maladie qui estoient d’Ivery près Paris, qui dissoient indiscrettement que il n’y avoit point de purgatoire et que sans cause estoit l’intercession des sainctz implorée et firent amende honnorable au parvy Nostre Dame.” Fagniez, Versoris, no. 422, 126. 154 Fagniez, Versoris, no. 379, 112–114; Driart, 132–133. 155 Fagniez, Versoris, no. 384, 115; Driart, 135. 149

resurrecting king and reform, –

365

disasters.156 By the time that the king’s sons were freed from captivity, Marguerite’s evangelical network did not just have the parlement against them, but in the eyes of many Parisians the saints and the Queen of Heaven as well. The Clandestine Evangelical Press The third and final trial of Louis de Berquin resulted in his death on 17 April 1529 before a crowd of 20,000 onlookers.157 The Virgin too had played her part in bringing him to trial: Berquin’s servant had fainted in front of a statue of the Madonna. On him were found compromising letters that contributed to Berquin’s conviction for heresy.158 The notoriety of Berquin’s three trials risks overshadowing the significance of his actual heretical deeds. On one level, Berquin’s case was an important test of wills between conservatives and the crown, emblematic of the consistent pressure from below on the royal court to exterminate heresy. Oddly, although Berquin was a notorious heretic, his crimes were not manifestly public. He was not a popular preacher or brash barrister, but a scholar, writer, and translator; in short, he was one of the leading evangelical authors of that era, most of whose writings were privately held in manuscript or published anonymously. He became infamous because he was indicted, not the reverse. While little is known about Berquin’s actual publications or circle of friends after 1523, the evidence points to a strong connection with Marguerite and her evangelical network. After having helped to save him in 1523 and 1526, she tried yet again to exculpate him during his final trial. When begging Francis to intervene on behalf of “le povre 156 “Dieu nous fist miracle tout evident et fust ceste année dicte et jugée année des miracles.” Fagniez, Versoris, no. 420, 123–124. 157 Berquin’s execution was a major event noted by all chroniclers: Versoris, no. 396, 119; Lalanne, Bourgeois, 378; and Driart, 138–139. In 1526, Driart had been one of the ecclesiastical judges brought in by the juges délégués, who condemned Berquin as a Lutheran heretic; see ibid., 115. Génin quotes an account of Berquin’s death in 1529 from a contemporary source, which says that 20,000 people were at his sentencing on the 16th, the day before his execution. Génin 1, no. 54, 219. For studies of Berquin’s final trial, see Romain Rolland’s extremely rich article in which he shows from many archival sources that Berquin’s trial in 1528–1529 was but one element in a bitter struggle between conservatives and evangelicals: “Le dernier procès de Louis de Berquin, 1927–1529,” Mélanges de l’École française de Rome 12 (1892), 314–325. See further Telle, Longeon, and Farge, as cited in chapter 6, note 97. 158 See V.-L. Bourrilly, “Une lettre inédite de Louis de Berquin (26 décembre 1526),” BSHPF 51 (1902), 634–637, 637.

366

chapter eight

Berquin,” whom he had saved twice before, Marguerite claimed that Berquin would show that “the forgers of heretics slander and disobey you more than they are zealous for the faith.”159 Marguerite was obviously very close to Berquin. One chronicler claimed that, after his release in late 1526, Marguerite had hired Berquin as a member of her household at the request of her husband, Henri d’Albret.160 Although Berquin does not appear on Marguerite’s rolls for those years (she probably had him installed on her husband’s rolls), it is noteworthy that her close connection with the notorious heretic was public knowledge. Other testimony about Berquin’s important role within the network exists. After Berquin’s execution, Marot or another close to him denounced Berquin’s judges in a vitriolic poem that remained unpublished during the sixteenth century.161 Furthermore, what is known or suspected about Berquin’s literary output leads deep into the Navarrian Network’s ongoing clandestine publishing campaign in the late 1520s. Berquin had vowed to revenge himself on his accusers of 1526. The literary manifestation of his vengeance inscribed itself in a long battle of books between evangelicals and the leading conservatives of the Paris Faculty of Theology. Lefèvre d’Étaples’ commentaries on the New Testament and many of Erasmus’s works had, after the Luther condemnation, become the chief targets of the faculty’s censorship campaign. In 1526, despite the hesitation of the parlement and the rest of the Faculty of Theology in proceeding against the heretics after the return of Francis I, Beda published his Annotationes against Lefèvre and Erasmus. First Lefèvre d’Étaples and

159 “. . . les forgeurs d’hérétiques plus maldisans et désobéissans à vous que zélateurs de la foy.” [Before 7 March, 1529], Génin 2, no. 51, 97 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 434). Marguerite repeats the same themes and uses the same terms, e.g., “zélateurs de verité,” as Berquin had used in justifying himself to Anne de Montmorency in his letter of 26 December 1526, edited by Bourrilly in the work cited in note 158. After the Affair of the Placards of 1534, Marguerite would similarly claim to her brother that conservatives had ‘planted the placards’ as a ploy to justify unleashing the resulting heresy hunt against evangelicals. 160 “Le Roi retourné [March 1526], il le [Berquin] saulva, et le print madame d’Allançon, royne de Navarre, à cause de son mary, en son service. Parquoy Dieu le voulut punir, luy fist enfler le cœur; car luy estant à pleine délivrance, dit et maintint que les dictz juges luy avoient faict tort et les menassa. Si les mist en procès en la cour de Parlement, disant qu’il en vouloit avoir réparation.” This passage comes in the course of recounting the history leading to Berquin’s 1529 arrest and burning. Lalanne, Bourgeois, 380. 161 See “L’epistre de Barquin,” in Marot, OP 2, 71–73 with notes on 840–844.

resurrecting king and reform, –

367

then Berquin meditated self-justifying attacks on their persecutors.162 After 1526, in return, works published against the syndic of the faculty and his ilk mounted. About this time appeared the scathing La farce des theologastres, which has been attributed to Berquin or his intimates.163 In 1527 and 1528, twelve articles, the Duodecim articuli, were published against Beda’s purported symbol of faith, and quickly followed by thirteen propositions (in French) taken from the syndic’s works. Both have been loosely attributed to Berquin, but, given that Lefèvre planned to respond directly to Beda, his hand may have been in them as well. For his part, Erasmus responded to his Parisian critics with at least five works: Notatiunculae ad naenias bedaicas;164 Elenchus in censuras Bedae;165 Dilutio contra Clichtove;166 Apologia adversus debacchationes P. Sutoris;167 and Declarationes ad censuras Lutetiae.168 In Beda’s response to these attacks, the Apologia Natalis Bedae theologi, aduersus clandestinos Lutheranos (1529),169 beyond defending himself against Erasmus, the syndic took aim at a number of local adversaries whom he suspected were the authors of the twelve Latin and thirteen French articles directed at him: Martial Mazurier, Pierre Caroli, and Louis de Berquin. Clichtove and other members of the faculty joined ranks with Beda by publishing other Latin works against the ‘hidden’ Lutherans of the realm. In addition, Clichtove was the main advisor and drafter of the anti-heresy articles promulgated at the Council of Sens in 1528. The evangelicals’ battle with Beda and his colleagues would continue into the 1530s. Along with the Sentence de Jehan Guibert, the network’s tracts against Beda and the other théologastres were but one arm of their literary campaign. The Instruction initiatoire, a manuscript made for Marguerite whose liminary poem was quoted at the head of chapter 7, points further to the complicity between Berquin, the printer Simon Du Bois, Marguerite, and the rest of her circle of evangelical writers.170 In the 162 See Roussel’s letter to Farel, 27 August 1526, Herminjard 1, no. 182, 448–451; Schmidt, Gérard Roussel, no. 9, 197–198. 163 See Claude Longeon’s fine edition as in chapter 6, note 97. 164 Farge, Registre 1, 1528, n. 52. 165 Farge, Registre 1, 159A, 209B. 166 Farge, Registre 1, 339 A. 167 Farge, Registre 1, 141 C. 168 Farge, Registre 1, 339 B, 340 A, 342 A, 342 A. 169 Reprinted in d’Argentré, Collectio judiciorum 3, pt. 2, 2–80. 170 See the fine articles by Myra Orth and Marc Vernard cited in chapter 7, note 4, for their presentation of this manuscript, its probable date of composition, the context

368

chapter eight

first place, circa 1530, Simon Du Bois printed the treatise on confession contained in the manuscript. Though the text was substantially reworked, the content of this treatise remained essentially the same between the manuscript and printed versions. The work instructs believers to confess first to God and then to faithful persons, who need not be priests, in order for their sins to be forgiven. The author does not do away with the formal ritual of confessing to priests, as all laypersons were required to do once per year. Rather, the treatise instructs the penitent to observe the church’s law, but to consider the priest’s words of absolution only as a sign of God’s forgiveness and not as its actual conveyance through the supposed priestly power of the keys. As for any penances imposed, the treatise tells believers to do them in humble faith, not as repayments for the debt of their sins, but in order not to scandalize their neighbors who have not yet understood that forgiveness comes from God alone.171 This ‘Nicodemite’ approach to the sacrament of penance is reminiscent of Jean Guibert’s practice of hearing confession, in which he did not claim to grant absolution—a practice that his final judges upheld as licit—as well as of Gérard Roussel’s later transformation of the sacrament in his diocese of Oloron.172 Notably, the section on confessing to a priest found in both the manuscript for Marguerite and the Du Bois edition was dropped when it was later reprinted in Protestant Geneva.

in which it was produced, as well as its programmatic cycle of illustrations, one of which graces the cover of this work. They focus on the two catechisms by Brenz which form the first part of the manuscript. 171 “Quant au regard de votre satisfaction et de la penitence (ainsi la nomment ilz) que l’en a acoustume d’en joindre au penitent. Je suis bien d’advis que pour evicter scandale, vous la recepvez et la faciez. Mais gardes vous comme d’ung chien enragé, et sur le peril de votre ame de periser que par ceste votre oeuvre ou aultre, vous pourries satisfaire a la justice de Dieu pour vos peches. Ne l’acceptes a celle fin ou intencion. Mieulx vous seroit de n’avoir oncq veu prestre mais croyez certainement et toute votre vie demeurez en ceste foy que toutes voz œuvres ne sont suffisantes pour satisfaire a la Divine justice pour le moindre peché que feistes oncque. Et qu’il n’en est aussi nul besoing. Car Jesuschrist a une foys satisfaict, non point pour ses peches . . . mais pour les peches de tous ceulx qui croyront et se firont en luy.” Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, MS 5096, Initiatoire instruction en la religion chrestienne, in part two, an untitled “Treatise on confession,” not foliated, last two folios of treatise. This treatise was published with important variants as Breue instruction pour soy confesser en verite [Simon Du Bois, c. 1530], See Higman, Piety, I 57, which is reprinted in Droz, Chemins 1, 59–78, and compared with a later reprint, the Breve instruction faicte par maniere de lettre missive: pour se confesser en verité ([Geneva: Jean Girard], 1539), cf. Higman, Piety, I 58. 172 For Roussel’s revised order for administering confession, see chapter 11 at note 86 ff.

resurrecting king and reform, –

369

The translations of the two Brenz catechisms in the Instruction initiatoire bear the distinguishing marks of the evangelicals in Marguerite’s network as well as telling traces of their religious dialogue. In an exact parallel to Berquin’s practice in his augmented translation of Erasmus’s treatises of the Ten Commandments and Credo, the translations of the Brenz catechisms clearly signal the presence of interpolated additions in the margin of the work. Some of these are marked “addition,” others by the name “Claudius.”173 These gestures, which exhibit a scrupulous respect for the original text, reveal an intimate world of mutual recognition. They presuppose that the reader (Marguerite) knew the content of the original work, the identity of the original author, Johannes Brenz, who is not named in the manuscript, the identity of the translator and compiler, who likely provided the passages marked ‘addition’—Simon Du Bois and Roussel have been suggested—as well as the identity of the second set of additions by the mysterious “Claudius.” Moreover, this text was obviously either destined to be printed or had already been printed by Simon Du Bois at the time it was copied. The scribe who penned the manuscript copied catch-words at the bottom of most pages, a procedure common in the type-setting of printed books, but one that made no sense in manuscripts (at least with the frequency found in the Instruction initiatoire), even ones copied in pre-formed quires of parchment. One can only assume that Marguerite’s intimates had or were intending to print these catechisms with her approval. These links between Berquin, Marguerite, and her circle to Du Bois establish their complicity in the ongoing production of evangelical tracts. In 1528, Simon Du Bois printed for Chrestien Wechel, who had received

173 Many of these additions give a sharper critical edge to Brenz’s original work. For example, Brenz defines the church as: “Quid dicitur ecclesia lingua nobis vernacula? Responsio. Congregatio, non illa quidem lignorum et lapidum, sed populi Dei.” D. Martini Lutheri theologi, Catechismus, lectu dignißimus, latinus factus per Vincentium Obsopoeum. Huic adiecti sunt alij quoque gemini Catechismi, Iohannis Brentij ecclesiastae Hallensis, eodem interprete. Haganoae, An. M. D. XXIX, R3r [question 47]. The Initiatoire introduction expands: “Theophile: Que signifie eglise en notre langue commune? Theodidacte: Eglise, signiffie congregation. Quant doncques nous disons, Ie croy la congregation, non pas ce monceau de boys et de pierres, ou la multitude des antichristians, ministres, qui ne sont rien moins que union ou congregation, veu que chacun d’eulx veult estre differend de l’autre, tant en sentence, ou opinion, que en supersticieuses et hipocriticqes ceremonies. Et quoy doncques? La compaignie totale du peuple de dieu. C’est à dire des chrestiens qui sont le vray temple de dieu, et qui tous jouxte le commandement de leur maistre, sent une mesme chose, et demeurent en une mesme reigle, saichans [24 r.] que quiconcques se retire d’unite. Il se retire de dieu.” 23v. Emphasis added to additional material.

370

chapter eight

a royal privilege for it, the most popular evangelical work of the early Reformation in France: the Livre de vraie et parfaict oraison (Paris, July 1528).174 This religious primer is an amalgam of many short catechetical works whose eclectic origins reflects the diversity of influences and multiple textual connections within Marguerite’s network. Among the work’s ten parts—which were printed in the first edition as separately signed quires, possibly for individual sale as pamphlets—were parts of Farel and Berquin’s previously printed works on the symbols of the faith, passages of Scripture taken from Lefèvre’s French translation of the New Testament and other texts which had previously been published by Du Bois. Two homilies by St. John Chrysostom, which were some of the first works by this Greek father to appear in French translation, likely had been reprinted from a lost edition by the Meaux group (probably by Lefèvre or Roussel) that, as related above, Bishop Briçonnet had had published during the years of the Meaux experiment. During the time that the network’s public preaching was largely on hold, the presses of Simon Du Bois and Martin Lempereur continued to produce its devotional tracts, Lefèvre’s Bible translations, and controversialist works. In the first category were more translations of works by Luther, Erasmus, Brunfels, and the pseudonymous Hermann Bodius, who may have been Martin Bucer.175 While not all of these editions can be tied to a specific author or editor in Marguerite’s orbit, the evidence that does exists points in that direction. For instance, despite being uninvited to preach at court in 1526, as was reported to Luther in 1527, Sigismund kept in contact with Marguerite, sending translations of the Saxon reformer’s works to her.176 Among the evangelical works of these years, two should be granted special note, for they demonstrate that evangelicals had an ongoing, assertive reforming agenda in their publishing campaign. Sometime after Du Bois’ move to Marguerite’s

174

Francis M. Higman, “Luther et la piété de l’église gallicane: le Livre de vraye et parfaicte oraison,” Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuse 63 (1980), 91–111; Higman, Piety, L 97. 175 See appendix B I for the years 1527–1530. 176 “Sigismundus ille Comes de Hohenloë iussit, ut se tibi vehementer commendarem. Perstat enim in sincera sententia tes eucharistias [in Greek characters], detestaturque ignobilem illorum arrogantiam. Neque cessat libellos tuos in gallicam linguam versos subinde mittere Gallorum regis sorori foemina pietate misericordiaque erga exules et afflictos singulari. Quam, si tu per otium posses, plurimum cupit libello aliquo per te in tam sancto instituto ut perseveraret adhortari. Nomen illi Margarethae Ducissae ut ferunt Alegoniae. Ita tamen ne hortatu suo id factum esse quisquam resciscat.” Nicolas Gerbel to Martin Luther [2 April 1527], WA Br 4, no. 1093, 189, ll. 22–30.

resurrecting king and reform, –

371

Alençon in 1529, he printed the first French translation of the work that had so delighted German evangelicals when it came to their attention: Lorenzo Valla’s On the False Donation of Constantine.177 Second, a mysterious little edition of a work by Augustine clearly declares its controversialist intent in the subtitle: Divi Aurelii Augustini Hipponensis episcopi de contemptu mundi ad clericos libellus, nihil esse eis in terra possidendum demonstrans. Plaude, sacerdotum exploditur philargyria. Si vacat Christiane Lector, an a CHRISTO sui absint discipuli introspicies, sin minus, quae tibi ex isto libello hic praemittimus, ne graveris aspicere, nec ea quidem Lutherus scripsit, nec in lucem edidit, sed pater eius, ut aiunt, professionis diuus Augustinus. [S.l.n., c. 1527]

The publisher of this edition is not known, but, given the subtitle’s challenge to the reader to have an open mind to the doctrines therein which are not Luther’s but those of the father of his order, it appears to have been part of the evangelicals’ printing campaign of these years.178 The Advent of Reformation Politics The Du Bellay brothers are well known for their major roles in the political history of Francis I’s reign. In the otherwise excellent studies devoted to the most important of the brothers, Guillaume and Jean, who were ably assisted by René and Martin, three important points have been downplayed. First, Marguerite cultivated their careers from their beginnings in the 1520s. Second, their collaboration was founded upon a set of shared commitments to furthering the dynastic ambitions of Francis I, patronizing scholars and poets of the new Renaissance letters, and promoting an evangelical reform of the Gallican church. Third, they collaborated closely to promote this agenda throughout the 1530s and 1540s.179 Exploring the first and second points briefly 177 Laurentz Valle poete et orateur romain sur la Donation de Constantin empereur [Alençon, Simon Du Bois, 1529–1534?]. This edition is not signaled in either Moore, La littérature allemande, or Higman, Piety. It was evidently reprinted at Geneva in 1543; see Aspects de la propagande religieuse, 227. 178 Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine Rés. 18044 A (4). The tract’s date of publication is conjectured based on its being bound in a contemporary binding with another evangelical tract, Louis de Berquin?, Duodecim articuli infidelitatis magistri Natalis Bedae, [Paris: Josse Bade, 1527?], Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine Rés. 18044A (3). 179 Jean and Guillaume Du Bellay are considered by some to have been faithful protégés of Anne de Montmorency. This view fails to account for the following: 1) After 1527, when Montmorency became grand master of the royal house, everyone

372

chapter eight

here will lead into a discussion of the first development of Reformation politics at the court of Francis I, thus preparing the way for an examination in subsequent chapters of its more momentous episodes during the following decades. Guillaume and Jean Du Bellay made their first major contributions to the royal regime during Francis I’s captivity. After Guillaume Du Bellay had embarked on several perilous journeys to Italy on furtive missions for the crown during the first days of Francis’s captivity, Marguerite selected him to accompany her as one of her councillors during her trip to Spain. In 1528, she ensured that Guillaume Du Bellay was paid by the royal chancery for all the expenses he had incurred while serving the crown.180 The chancellor, Cardinal Antoine Duprat, had scolded Guillaume as incompetent and a waster of the king’s funds, preventing him from being paid. More than just intergovernmental power politics was at play here. By 1528, conservatives and evangelicals at court were becoming known as such, leading to factional strife. In the summer of that year, an anonymous Catholic, probably an Italian under the inspiration of the members of the Faculty of Theology, wrote to Rome from Paris to protest the re-composition of the juges délégués. He claimed that although Francis and Louise were good Catholics, they had been prompted by “others close to them” (alluding to Marguerite) to reconstitute the commission, which was now stacked with “declared or suspected Lutherans.” The time had come that:

at court had to go through him for royal and ecclesiastical appointments as well as to participate in diplomatic planning. Everyone who wished to serve or influence royal affairs, therefore, was ‘his good friend,’ including Marguerite. 2) All foreigners recognized Jean and Guillaume to be more or less sincerely evangelical and Anne de Montmorency to be a staunch, though pragmatic conservative. 3) When Montmorency fell from grace in 1541, his enemies, such as the duchess d’Étampes, counted Jean Du Bellay as an ally. 4) When Henry II came to power with Montmorency as his chief minister, Jean Du Bellay was sidelined to Rome. For the image of the brothers as allies of Anne de Montmorency, see Francis Decrue, Anne de Montmorency, grand maître et connétable de France à la cour, aux armées, et au conseil du roi François Ier, 2 vols. (Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1885–1889; repr. Geneva: Mégariotis Reprints, 1978), 396 ff. Cf. Guillaume’s complaint to Montmorency in 1541 that he and his brother Jean were being shut out of French diplomatic efforts with the German Protestants; see V.-L. Bourrilly, Guillaume Du Bellay, seigneur de Langey, 1491–1543 (Paris: Société nouvelle de librairie et d’édition, 1905), 312–314. 180 [May?] 1528, Marguerite to Montmorency, Génin 1, no. 71, 242 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 407). See further Guillaume’s initial letter of complaint against Chancellor Duprat, [c. April–May 1528], Guillaume Du Bellay to Marguerite, BnF F.fr. 5152, fols. 13r–16v (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 404, citing F.fr. 5112 instead of 5152).

resurrecting king and reform, –

373

. . . the heretics seek to depose saintly judges using Langey [Guillaume Du Bellay, then French ambassador to Rome], who is also of the sect . . . wishing to replace them with men who incline to their party . . . . All these heretics collude and are working together (much better than do the just), and they are determined to spread their heresy. If the Devil is able (and you have opened the door with the pope’s bull), you will not have to wait long before you hear that France has been as badly ruined as Germany.181

Reflecting the views of conservatives at Paris, whose fears that the heretics would take over were exaggerated, the Du Bellay brothers were already considered to be linchpins of the evangelical party at court. This letter helps to explain why Jean Du Bellay was investigated for a short time in 1530 on suspicion of being a heretic.182 Throughout the period 1528 through 1530, Marguerite was in close contact with both Du Bellay brothers as they played major roles in France’s missions to Rome and England, especially as Henry VIII’s Great Matter unfolded.183 At the beginning of 1531, Marguerite had Jean Du Bellay by her side for a conference whose purpose is not known.184 In September of that year, Marguerite and her mother recommended him for the see of Paris, whose appointment he received in 1532 after the holder, François Poncher, died in the prison of Vincennes, where

181 Romain Rolland, “Le dernier procès de Louis de Berquin, 1927–1529,” Mélanges de l’École française de Rome, 12 (1892), 314–325; 317–319. 182 Shortly before 12 September 1530 Jean Du Bellay was investigated by the Parlement of Paris: “Chambres assemblées le Roi se plaint à la cour de l’avis qu’elle avait informé contre l’evêque de Bayonne [Jean Du Bellay] pour crimes d’hérésies lequel était de son conseil et commandement sur tous les autres prélats du Royaume réponse aux députés que la cour ne sait ce que c’est qu’elle députera vers sa Majesté aucuns des Messieurs qui lui apporteraient le procès du prisonnier où l’on dit qu’il a été informé contre l’evêque.” The investigation came to naught by 20 December 1530: “Rapport des députés d’être allés vers le Roi pour lui faire entendre que ce qui lui avait été dit contre led. évêque n’était par véritable.” BPF MS 140, “Religionnaires: Procès et procédures contre eux,” copied from the records of the Parlement of Paris, fols. 13r and 14r. 183 For French involvement in the build up to Henry VIII’s ‘divorce’, see the rich documentation in Guy Bedouelle and Patrick Le Gal, Le “Divorce” du Roi Henry VIII: Études et documents (Geneva: Droz, 1987). The Du Bellay brothers, their agents such as Doctor Gervais Wain, as well as Marguerite and her husband Henri d’Albret would all play their part in coercing judgments favorable to Henry VIII from the faculties of law and theology within the realm. See further, Farge, Orthodoxy, and Joachim Le Grand, Histoire du divorce de Henry VIII, Roy d’Angleterre, et de Catherine d’Aragon, 3 vols. (Paris: M. G. Baguenault, 1688). For Marguerite’s contact with Jean Du Bellay while on ambassadorial missions, see Jourda, Répertoire, nos. 408, 429, 430, 467, and 495. 184 Marguerite to Anne de Montmorency, [Alençon?, beginning of 1531], Génin 1, no. 93, 272–273 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 503).

374

chapter eight

he had been incarcerated, it was rumored, for refusing to resign his bishopric and a rich abbey at the king’s request.185 Thus, one of her trusted evangelical allies was established in perhaps the most important ecclesiastical post in the realm for countering the power of the Conservative Party.186 No immediate positive results for Marguerite’s network came from her collaboration with the Du Bellays. Yet the foundation of their subsequent attempts to promote an evangelical settlement for France through foreign intrigues was being laid. From 1528 to 1531, Protestants in southern Germany and Switzerland made overtures towards France in order to gain its support in a grand alliance against the emperor. These beginnings of France’s involvement in Reformation politics are shrouded in a degree of mystery and have never been studied as a whole. Only an outline of them can be developed here. Above all, we see that the Germans and Swiss used the network of French evangelicals as their conduit to the French court. The reformers at Strasbourg had remained actively interested in promoting the evangelical cause in France even after Farel’s defection. There was an overt religious cover and a furtive political underbelly to this development. In March 1528, Sigismund von Hohenlohe finally made his longedfor journey to France as ambassador from Strasbourg. The purpose of his mission is not explained in the sources, but it coincided with Marguerite’s return to court in the Paris region after an extended trip in her new southern territories. The only known outcome of his visit was that Francis I commissioned Hohenlohe to engage a company of 3,000 Landsknechts for France.187 While Sigismund’s contact with Marguerite and France continued until 1530, its nature and purpose is unknown and deserves further research.188

185

Bourrilly, Bourgeois, 370. Marguerite to Anne de Montmorency, [September 1531], Génin 1, no. 96, 276–277 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 517). 187 Rodolphe Peter, “Strasbourg et la Réforme française vers 1525” in Strasbourg au cœur religieux du XVIe siècle: Hommage à Lucien Febvre. Actes du colloque international de Strasbourg (25–29 mai 1975), ed. by Georges Livet and Francis Rapp (Strasbourg: Librairie Istra, 1977), 269–283. 188 After Sigismund’s return to Strasbourg, Marguerite and he exchanged a further set of letters in June 1528; see Peter, “Strasbourg et la Réforme française,” 274. In December 1528, a certain Stiebar, evidently a Swiss student from Basel then studying in Paris, wrote to Amerbach about his potential involvement with Sigismund’s troop raising for Francis I: “Comes de Hoenlohe non modo aureos montes est pollicitus, sed nolo ullis rebus me implicari; id mihi propemodum contigit. Cuius gratia 186

resurrecting king and reform, –

375

While these political contacts were being pursued, Marguerite’s reputation as the pillar of the evangelical cause at court encouraged Capito, Bucer, and Zwingli to dedicate several of their books to her, the king, and other members of the royal family.189 Bucer offered his commentary on the Psalms to the dauphin on 13 July 1529, during the negotiations for the Treaty of Cambrai (3 August 1529). Based on insider information, Bucer called public attention to the fact that Lefèvre d’Étaples was tutor to the king’s children and using the Psalms in his lessons. Given the timing and target of his dedication, his undeclared intent seems to have been to help jump-start the prospects for evangelical renewal in France at the very moment that it appeared likely Francis I’s hands would be freed by the return of his children. Similarly, Zwingli’s dedication of his Christianae fidei brevis et clara expositio ad regem Christianum [Fidei expositio] in July 1531 to both Francis I and Marguerite, points to a second and initially more important track of possible collaboration between France and the Protestant powers.190 Zwingli and Philip of Hesse had been meditating a military

Basileae dixeram hic me aliquot menses restiturum.” Paris, 21 December 1528, AK 3, no. 1314, 381. On 15 December 1529, Bucer reported that Sigismund von Hohenlohe had returned from France with news about an anti-evangelical league. This was probably an exaggerated interpretation of the terms of the Ladies Peace: “Comes ab Hocheloë germanus, qui a Gallis huc pridem rediit, invulgat neque incredible neque inexpectatum foedus, quod in Elvetios et respublicas ab euangelio stantes moliuntur monarche, nempe pontifex Rhomanus, Caesar, Gallus, Ferdinandus, Stephanus a Gyß, Lotaringiae ducis frater. Non deerunt reliqui episcopi, neque impediet eventus aliquis tam [tetrum] ac funestum consilium, nisi Tucus perrexerit; adeo se confirmarunt adversus libertatem et evangelium.” ZW 10, no. 943, 355–357, 357; Bucer, Corr. 3, no. 262, 342–345. Finally, in December 1530, the Small Council of Strasbourg received a long report, possibly from Sigismund, about the evangelicals in France and at court, including Marguerite, d’Arande Caroli, Roussel, and Lefèvre d’Étaples, as well as detailed advice about whom to approach in the king’s council in order to promote better relations with the German Protestants. See Politische Correspondenz der Stadt Strassburg 1, no. 857, 561–565. 189 In Rodolphe Peter and Bernard Roussel, eds., Le livre et la Reforme (Bordeaux: Société des bibliophiles de Guyenne, 1987), see articles by Bernard Roussel, “La dédicace à François Ier du De vera et falsa religione commentarius de H. Zwingli (mars 1525); Olivier Millet, “Wolfgang Fabricius Capiton à Marguerite de Navarre (1528): dédicace de In Hoseam prophetam commentarius”; and R. Gerald Hobbs, “Le félin et le dauphin: Martin Bucer dédie ses commentaires sur le psautier au fils de François Ier.” 190 On the momentous choice facing south German Protestants, between casting their political lot in with either the princes in the north or the Swiss cantons to the south with whom historically they had closer ties, see the masterful account by Thomas A. Brady, Jr., in Protestant Politics, 65–80.

376

chapter eight

alliance against the emperor well before the Marburg Colloquy (1529).191 They hoped to entice France to join their cause. Contacts with the French ambassadors Lambert Meigret, brother of the deceased heretic Aimé, and Louis Dangerant [Boisrigault] broached a semi-official connection between the French court and south German and Swiss Protestant powers. In this context of possible political collaboration with the evangelical princes and cities of Germany and Switzerland, Marguerite sent an urgent message to Martin Bucer at the Diet of Augsburg, pleading with him to ensure that the ‘Protestants’ would present a common confession to the emperor since a unified front their would aid the cause of the gospel in France.192 How Marguerite and her entourage had become so well informed about German politics is not known. They clearly recognized the importance of this moment in imperial affairs for the future of the evangelical cause in general. With the king’s children on the verge of being returned (9 August 1530), Marguerite and her advisors acted promptly and daringly outside the official diplomatic channels to urge foreign powers to collaborate with them in promoting the evangelical cause within the realm. Marguerite saw from the beginning of the rise

191 The first phase of Zwingli and Hesse’s plans is only cursorily studied by Albert Hyrvoix, whose source-rich and bizarrely confessional article concentrates on the events of 1531 leading up to the Second Kappel Capal War, see Albert Hyrvoix de Landosle, “François Ier et la première guerre de religion en Suisse,” Revue des questions historiques 71 (1902), 464–537. To his rich documentation should be added some two dozen letters in volumes 10 and 11 of ZW between Zwingli and the two French ambassadors, Lambert Meigret, who had Protestant leanings, and Louis Dangerant [Boisrigault], who seems to have been a traditional Catholic. Initial inspection indicates that Meigret and Zwingli at times tried to quietly bypass Boisrigault. The multiple levels of complicity, which were dictated by the respective religious views of the diplomatic agents involved, was typical of French foreign relations. 192 See chapter 2, n. 16. Marguerite’s request fit well with Bucer’s intentions. On 25 August 1530, one day after he and Melanchthon had decided at Augsburg to come to an agreement, Bucer did write to Luther to solicit Saxon approval. In the end, Protestant powers did not offer a common front, which all recognized weakened the cause. See Brady, Protestant Politics, 77 et infra. The carrier of Marguerite’s letter or message to Bucer was almost certainly Louis de Rabodanges, extraordinary ambassador from France to the emperor, August–September 1530. CAF 9, 41. His instructions were dated 31 July 1530. Marguerite received letters carried by Rabodanges before 7 August 1530 at Blois; see Jourda, Répertoire, no. 486. Since he next proceeded to the emperor at the Diet of Augsburg, he, or someone in his train, was the probable link between Marguerite and others in her entourage at Blois with Bucer at Augsburg. In August. Montmorency and the rest of the court would have had no immediate knowledge of her missive, since they were far south for the reception of Francis’s children on 9 August 1530. See Génin 1, 260, n. 5; 446–447.

resurrecting king and reform, –

377

of “Protestant” politics in the Empire that her network’s aspirations for evangelical reform in France depended in large part on the continued success and unity of the German Protestants as well as their willingness to lend a helping hand.193 In sum, Marguerite and her network’s unofficial relations with reformers abroad in the late 1520s had opened the way for the beginning of French involvement in confessionally-colored international politics. After the Schmalkaldic League formed in 1531, French evangelicals at court would seize on the possibility of an alliance with the Protestants as an arm against the emperor. The Du Bellay brothers would come to dominate French involvement in this new field of foreign relations over the following dozen years, widening the paths to Strasbourg, Basel, Zurich, and Wittenberg that had already been blazed by evangelical scholars in Marguerite’s network.

193 Oecolampadius, who had been such an encouraging supporter of the French evangelicals, expressed some of the earliest doubts about the French to his more politically ambitious colleague Zwingli. In March 1530, he wrote: “De Gallis mihi parva spes est. Quavis enim ratione potius, quam euangelii praetextu, conciliari posse videntur. Utinam saperent!” ZW 10, no. 1005, 532. He remained skeptical even with news of the probable return of Francis I’s children: “Gallia tardius accedet Christo. Nunciant enim, qui inde hoc Pasca [17 April] venerunt, episcopos et theologos multum grassari in eos, qui Christum profitentur. Ad quod non solum tacet rex, sed et minatur ignem doctissimis Gerard Rufo et Iacobo Fabri et aliis, nisi dissuaserint sorori, quod persuaserunt, videoque optimos nostros amicos, qui illic, valde sibi metuere. Quod si iam reluctatur domino, periculum est, ubi receperit vel non receperit liberos, per hypocrisin simulaturum euangelium.” Oecolampadius to Zwingli, 4 May 1530, ZW 10, no. 1018, 564–565; Herminjard 2, no. 290, 249–250.

King’s Sister – Queen of Dissent

Studies in Medieval and Reformation Traditions Edited by

Andrew Colin Gow Edmonton, Alberta In cooperation with

Thomas A. Brady, Jr., Berkeley, California Sylvia Brown, Edmonton, Alberta Berndt Hamm, Erlangen Johannes Heil, Heidelberg Susan C. Karant-Nunn, Tucson, Arizona Martin Kaufhold, Augsburg Jürgen Miethke, Heidelberg M. E. H. Nicolette Mout, Leiden Founding Editor

Heiko A. Oberman †

VOLUME 139/2

King’s Sister – Queen of Dissent Marguerite of Navarre (1492–1549) and her Evangelical Network Volume 2

By

Jonathan A. Reid

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2009

Cover illustration: Christ carrying the cross on the way to Calvary with Henri II d’Albert, king of Navarre, Marguerite d’Angoulême, queen of Navarre, and their court following in procession. Initiatoire instruction en la religion chrestienne pour les enffans, Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal Rés. MS 5096, fol. 1v (cliché Bibliothèque nationale de France). This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Reid, Jonathan A. King’s sister—queen of dissent : Marguerite of Navarre (1492–1549) and her evangelical network / by Jonathan A. Reid. p. cm. — (Studies in medieval and reformation traditions, ISSN 1573-4188 ; 139) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-90-04-17497-9 (acid-free paper) 1. Marguerite, Queen, consort of Henry II, King of Navarre, 1492–1549. 2. Reformation—France—History. 3. Evangelicalism—France—History. 4. Queens— Navarre (Kingdom)—Biography. I. Title. II. Title: Marguerite of Navarre (1492–1549) and her evangelical network. III. Series. DC112.M2R45 2009 946’.52042092—dc22 [B] 2009010200

ISSN 1573-4188 ISBN 978 90 04 17760 4 (volume 1) ISBN 978 90 04 17761 1 (volume 2) ISBN 978 90 04 17497 9 (set) Copyright 2009 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands

CONTENTS

VOLUME 1

List of Tables ....................................................................................... Acknowledgements ............................................................................ Abbreviations and Short Titles ........................................................

xi xiii xvii

Introduction. Resolving a Riddle: Marguerite of Navarre and the Early French Reformation ............................................. A Twofold Riddle .......................................................................... French Reformation Historiography: The “Magnificent Anarchy” ..................................................................................... Structure of Study ..........................................................................

4 13

Chapter One. The Early Reformation in France ....................... Evangelical Growth ....................................................................... The Crisis of Evangelicalism ........................................................ The Reformed Ascendancy ..........................................................

17 18 23 28

Chapter Two. Mapping the Navarrian Network ........................ Contemporary Signposts .............................................................. Sources for Reconstructing the Navarrian Network ................ Dramatis Personae .........................................................................

35 38 47 56

Chapter Three. The Valois Trinity Takes Power: New Regime and Church Reform, 1515–1521 ......................... The Royal Trinity ........................................................................... Marguerite: The Trinity’s Minor Partner and Her New Powers ......................................................................................... Marguerite’s Support of Francis’s Rule: Foreign Affairs and the Concordat .................................................................... The Royal Family’s Religion and Late Medieval Reform ........ Leading Characteristics of Marguerite’s Religion .....................

1 2

85 85 87 97 103 107

vi

contents

Chapter Four. The Fabrist Background to the Navarrian Network ........................................................................ “Ante illustrationem Evangelii:” Evangelical Self-awareness ............................................................................ The Fabrists’ Career ....................................................................... From “Barbarian Captivity” to the “Babylonian Captivity:” The Restoration of Learning .................................................... Before Meaux: A Season of Growth and Strife ........................ Prepared but not Destined for Meaux .......................................

122 126 139

Chapter Five. The Meaux Experiment I: From Clerical Reform to Evangelical Renewal, 1518–1523 ............................. Clerical Reform to 1521 ............................................................... Evangelical Renewal, 1521–1523 .................................................

151 153 169

Chapter Six. The Meaux Experiment II: Model for National Reform, 1521–1523 ....................................................... Briçonnet’s ‘Band’ and ‘Captain’ Marguerite ............................. A Reform Program Rebuffed, Fall 1522 .................................... The Cold War Heats Up, May–December 1523 ....................... The Bourges Breakout, November 1523–February 1524 ........

181 186 196 213 241

115 115 119

Chapter Seven. From Meaux to Madrid: The Network Knits Together, 1524–1526 ........................................................... Birth of the Network: An International “Fraternal Alliance” ...................................................................................... The French Evangelical Reform Program and the German Connection ................................................................. The Invention of the French Evangelical Press in 1525 .......... Leadership and Strategy—Doctrine and Purpose ....................

260 274 293

Chapter Eight. Resurrecting King and Reform, 1525–1530 ....................................................................................... The King in Captivity and Reform in Exile, 1525–1526 ......... Reform Held Hostage, 1526–1530 ..............................................

315 315 345

249 254

contents

vii

VOLUME 2

Chapter Nine. Legitimating the Evangelical Movement, 1531–1539 ....................................................................................... Prologues to the Paris Campaign, 1531–1534 .......................... Evangelical Buildup and Breakdown in Paris, 1533–1535 ..... An Improbable Religious Concord, 1533–1536 .......................

379 383 417 436

Chapter Ten. The ‘Sons of Apollo’ in the Service of Christ ..... Poets as Religious Leaders ........................................................... Polemics and Piety ........................................................................

447 458 470

Chapter Eleven. Secret Diplomacy and Religious Dissimulation, 1540–1549 ............................................................ “The Emperor is Hypocrisy and the Pope the Devil”: Evangelical Diplomacy at the Court of Francis I, 1540–1547 .................................................................................. Building Evangelical Institutions: Claude Baduel and Gérard Roussel .......................................................................... The Dynamics of Separation: The Navarrian Network and Calvin ..................................................................................

497

497 516 550

Conclusion. Towards the Wars of Religion ................................

565

Appendix A. Additions and Corrections to the Correspondence of Marguerite of Navarre ............................... Additions and Corrections ........................................................... Index: Changes to Letter Numbers .............................................

575 577 638

Appendix B. Books Related to the Navarrian Network ........... I. A Checklist of Books Related to the Navarrian Network ................................................................................... II. Manuscript Books of the Navarrian Network ................... III. The Navarrian Network’s Reading List 1524 .....................

641 645 714 719

viii

contents

Bibliography ........................................................................................ Manuscript Sources ....................................................................... The Correspondence of Marguerite of Navarre: Manuscript and Printed Sources ............................................ Printed Primary Sources and Secondary Literature ................

723 723 724 731

Index ....................................................................................................

771

LIST OF TABLES

1. Royal Family Household Accounts ............................................ 2. Chronology of Marguerite’s Correspondence with Briçonnet ........................................................................................ 3. Verdicts Rendered Against the Alençon Forty, September 1534 ............................................................................. 4. The Literary Oeuvre of the “Sons of Apollo” ........................... 5. Calvin’s Controversialist Works to 1550 ...................................

90 184 396 451 551

CHAPTER NINE

LEGITIMATING THE EVANGELICAL MOVEMENT, 15311539

Never have I understood so well that “The heart of the king is in the hand of God,” [Prv 21:1] as at this very moment when even amid these flames he [Francis I] gives thought to renewing the faith. What we have ever been longing for, what we have never been able to attain is now spontaneously offered to us: the peaceful reversal of all those things that are going amiss in the Christian faith.1 —Johann Sturm to Martin Bucer, from Paris, [March 1535]

In March 1535, the persecution of heretics following the Placards Affair was still going full blaze. Having been persuaded by the Du Bellay brothers not to flee, Johann Sturm, a German humanities professor at the University of Paris, advertised to evangelicals in the Empire that even in such dire circumstances their French brethren at court saw through the smoke an opportunity for a sudden reversal. On the heels of Francis I’s solemn participation in a grand procession in honor of the Holy Sacrament in Paris, a day capped with the burning of six heretics, they had convinced him to invite Philipp Melanchthon to France to confer about achieving a religious reunion. With the king’s heart warming to their cause, they hoped his hand might be stirred to shape the reformation of the faith for which Marguerite and the Du Bellay brothers had been struggling. Written at the height of a furious anti-heresy terror, Sturm’s letter to Bucer and a companion missive to Philipp Melanchthon, in which he pleaded with the reformer to come despite the burnings, give prima facie evidence against several widely held theses about the effect of the

1 “Nusquam magis intelligere potui, cor Regis in manu Dei esse, quam hoc tempore, quando in ipsis flammis cogitat de renovanda religione. Quod semper exoptavimus, quod nunquam obtinere potuimus, hoc jam ultro nobis obfertur: tranquilla commutatio eorum quae perperam in religione Christiana fiunt.” Johann Sturm from Paris to Martin Bucer, 10 March 1535, Herminjard 3, no. 498, 272. Sturm had written to Melanchthon from Paris four days earlier on 6 March, imploring him to accept Francis I’s invitation, which the Du Bellay brothers had persuaded the king to offer despite the Placards Affair. See Herminjard 3, no. 498, 266–271.

380

chapter nine

Placards. In general, most scholars consider that for one reason or another, the Placards scuttled any chance of an evangelical reformation succeeding.2 In particular, Francis I, in whose hands the matter rested, is deemed to have been so shocked by the tumult that he was never again seriously inclined to follow the lead of evangelicals at court in religious matters, if indeed he had ever been so inclined, which some will not allow.3 Moreover, Marguerite and her fellow agitators are thought to have more or less willingly abandoned the cause, or at any event to have lost all sway over the king.4 If so, it is hard to explain why they were trying to bring Melanchthon to France or why the king was listening to their overtures for a religious concord in March 1535. Most importantly, Sturm’s letters illustrate that during the mid-1530s Marguerite and her network had undertaken a daring attempt to legitimate the evangelical cause by working in tandem on the domestic and international fronts. Picking up from where they had left off following the captivity of the royal children in 1526, they renewed their domestic efforts to promote preaching, print evangelical books, and place their members in positions of power. The highpoint of this campaign was Marguerite’s sponsorship of Gérard Roussel’s preaching in Paris during Lent 1533. The wild popularity of his sermons led to another period of intense conflict between evangelicals and conservatives, which culminated in the posting of those famous Placards by zealots from the evangelical camp. Concurrently, Marguerite and her allies seized upon two favorable circumstances—the formation of the Schmalkald League in 1531 and Henry VIII’s “Great Matter”—and attempted to forge a seemingly improbable religious concord among France, the German Protestants, England, and even the pope. Had they succeeded, the plan would have validated the core demands of evangelicals, both in France and abroad. The events of the years 1533 to 1536—Roussel’s preaching at the Louvre, Nicolas Cop’s All Saints’ Day oration, the Affair of the Placards,

2 For a well-balanced discussion of the principal opinions about the effects of the Placards, see, Mark Greengrass, The French Reformation (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1987), 24–27. 3 R. J. Knecht, “Francis I, ‘Defender of the Faith,’ ” in Wealth and Power in Tudor England: Essays Presented to S. T. Bindoff, ed. E. W. Ives, R. J. Knecht and J. J. Scarisbrick (London: University of London, Athlone Press, 1978), 106–127; N. M. Sutherland, The Huguenot Struggle for Recognition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980), 27–30. 4 Berthoud, Antoine Marcourt, 221, as in note 5.

legitimating the evangelical movement, –

381

as well as the Du Bellay brothers’ campaign to bring Melanchthon, Bucer, and Caspar Hedio to France for a religious colloquy—are among the best known of the early Reformation in France and have been well studied individually.5 However, the interconnection between these events and more particularly Marguerite and her network’s responsibility for orchestrating them has yet to be established. The second and third sections of this chapter provide brief recapitulations of the more extensive treatments of other scholars. Adding some new data to the established picture, they will demonstrate Marguerite and her allies’ responsibility on all fronts of this multi-faceted campaign to legitimate the evangelical movement. As these major events unfolded, French evangelicalism took an equally momentous ‘literary turn,’ whose full magnitude and importance has

5 Accounts of the tumultuous events at Paris are a mainstay of all histories of early modern France, including the overview presented in chapter 1. The concurrent and intertwined diplomatic efforts at religious concord, however, are not taken up in the standard Reformation histories of Denis Crouzet, La genèse de la Réforme française, 1520–1562 or Mark Greengrass, The French Reformation. In a concise and unabashedly nationalist presentation of the failed French overtures for union with the Germans between 1530 and 1536 in their broader European context—a presentation that had obvious contemporary resonances when published in 1914—Imbart, Origines 3, 368–415 and 498–578, largely ignores the significance of the events at Paris as well as the animating role of Marguerite and other evangelicals at court in driving events forward both home and abroad. Though focused on diplomatic events, still unsurpassed for effectively integrating both domestic and international developments are four works by V.-L. Bourrilly: “François Ier et les Protestants: Les essais de concorde en 1535,” BSHPF 49 (1900), 337–365, 477–495; “Jean Sleidan et le Cardinal Du Bellay: Premier séjour de Jean Sleidan en France (1533–1540),” BSHPF 50 (1901), 225–242; Guillaume Du Bellay, Seigneur de Langey, 1491–1543 (Paris: Société Nouvelle de Librairie et d’Édition, 1905); and V.-L. Bourrilly and Nathaniel Weiss, “Jean Du Bellay, les Protestants et la Sorbonne (1529–1535),” BSHPF 52 (1903), 193–231; 53 (1904), 97–143. Karl Josef Seidel, Frankreich und die deutschen Protestanten: die Bemühungen um ein religiöse Konkordie und die französische Bündnispolitik in den Jahren 1534/35, Reformations-geschichtliche Studien und Texte 102 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1970) provides a full account of the debate within Germany and Switzerland about the French overtures as well as of Marguerite and the Du Bellay brothers’ deeds as the architects of the policy (123 ff.). Thomas A. Brady, Jr., gives an incisive analysis of the relative strengths of French and English overtures to the Protestant Schmalkaldic League from the mid-1530s through the mid-1540s and the reasons for their failures, in Protestant Politics, 150–161. For the Paris Placards, their aftermath, and the ‘evangelical underground’ responsible for them, see Gabrielle Berthoud, Antoine Marcourt, réformateur et pamphlétaire du “Livre des marchans” aux placards de 1534, THR 129 (Geneva: Droz, 1973), ch. 6, 157 ff., and idem, “Les ‘Ajournés’ du 25 janvier 1535,” BHR 25 (1963), 307–324. Jean Dupèbe, “Un Document sur les persécutions de l’hiver 1533–1534 à Paris,” BHR 48 (1986), 405–417 adds further evidence about the evangelical network anchored by Gérard Roussel at Paris in 1533, including Calvin and other ‘Geraldini.’

382

chapter nine

hitherto been undiagnosed. Starting in the early 1530s and with growing strength into the next decade, over twenty poets and prose writers, whom Marguerite and the Du Bellay brothers patronized, emerged in print as the public face and voice of the evangelical movement: a role the clerics and schoolmen in her network were increasingly unable to fulfill after the Placards and the failure of their concord diplomacy. Although several of these writers are among the most famous and well studied of the era, the magnitude of their collective effort to promote religious renewal and its coordination with Marguerite and her allies’ efforts in Paris and abroad have not yet been described or fully appreciated by literary scholars, bibliographers, or historians of sixteenth-century France. So extensive was these writers’ contribution to the movement led by Marguerite, that the following chapter will be wholly devoted to their efforts, which, it must be remembered, ran parallel to and, as will be argued, were coordinated with the events described in this chapter and in the final one covering the 1540s. Beyond the public, political, and literary fronts of their campaign, the network’s leaders quietly persisted throughout this period in fostering local evangelical sodalities within France. Their promotion of grass-roots religious renewal appears to have remained, as it had been at Meaux, an integral part of their broad ambition to reform church and society. For information about these efforts, we are largely at the mercy of the inquisitors, who have left a thin record of the existence, membership, and activities of such groups in the fragmentary trial documents that survive. From such judicial records, we know evangelical ideas had gained adherents in at least forty cities in France by 1535, many of them in regions under Marguerite’s sway, and were winning more rapidly.6 As for Marguerite and her network’s full role and success in spreading heterodox ideas during the 1530s and onward, this chapter offers only some benchmarks for future assessment. Much further archival work on such locales will be needed before we can formulate an adequate answer to these important questions.7

6 Drawing largely on the Histoire ecclésiastique, Crespin’s Histoire des martyrs, and articles in the BSHPF, Samuel Mours identified this many cities for 1535, and tracked the rate of growth thereafter in his Le protestantisme en France au XVIe siècle (Paris: Librairie Protestante, 1959), 43–49 and following for later years. 7 Based on an impressive and still unsurpassed array of citations from archival records, Imbart de la Tour conducts a remarkable tour of France (Imbart, Origines 3, 368–415), pointing to examples, often first instances, of heretical activity, demonstrating that evangelical ideas had penetrated nearly every region by 1540. Beyond a few

legitimating the evangelical movement, –

383

To that end, we turn first to Marguerite and her network’s efforts in the early 1530s to foster three local evangelical ‘brotherhoods’ and protect them from persecution, events which marked a new period of religious strife and constituted the first skirmishes in their renewed campaign to legitimate the evangelical cause.

Prologues to the Paris Campaign, 1531–1534 A gradual nation-wide buildup prepared the way for the era-defining struggle between evangelicals and conservatives at Paris. Marguerite and her network were deeply involved at all turns. As described in the preceding chapter, Marguerite had ordered a halt to evangelical preaching and agitation during the captivity of Francis I’s children. As soon as their return was guaranteed, she recommenced the campaign in favor of religious renewal. Her urgent overture to Bucer at the 1530 Diet of Augsburg signaled as much to the then forming Protestant powers.8 At home, however, despite the new period of opportunity

preliminary suggestions, he has no explanation of how or why the movement was growing. Many of the veins of archival sources identified by him remain to be mined. There have, of course, been studies of the ‘origins’ of dissent in different cities and regions in France. Most of these, however, have been done by local historians, many during the nineteenth century. Modern studies have ignored the question of origins and concentrated on describing established Huguenot communities during the Wars of Religion from circa 1560 onward. Aside from Veissière’s and Heller’s studies on Meaux, and Heller’s The Conquest of Poverty, which is a collection of case studies of seven towns, the most impressive histories of religious developments on the local level before the Wars of Religion have been done on Catholic reform movements and the always exceptional Waldensian communities. See the bibliography for the seminal works of Marc Venard, Nicole Lemaître, Gabriel Audisio, Emmanuel Le Roi Ladurie, and Pirette Paravay. The chronological and geographic scope of evangelical communities linked to Marguerite has been suggested in chapter 2. A full survey of the growth of heterodoxy in all those locales and a comparison of them with other communities that grew in places outside Marguerite’s spheres of influence are the logical next stages of research beyond the scope of the present study. Jonathan A. Reid, “Evangelical Networks in France (1520–1555): Proto-churches?” in La Réforme en France et en Italie: Contacts, Comparaisons et Contrastes, ed. Philip Benedict, Silvana Seidel-Menchi, and Alain Tallon (Rome: École Française de Rome, 2007), 105–124, offers a first foray in this line of investigation by analyzing the way the evangelical movement grew in Bourges, a city in Marguerite’s duchy of Berry, and drawing comparisons with the little that is known about such growth in other French cities. 8 See the final pages of chapter 8. The princes and cities who protested at Speyer in 1529 were not, of course, fully “Protestant” until they presented their confessions of faith at Augsburg in 1530.

384

chapter nine

that appeared to be dawning, she and other evangelicals faced strong opposition. Conservatives had been ascendant at court and in Paris for over four years and remained in control. As early as 1528, Erasmus and other observers had seen clearly that on religious matters Francis’s closest advisors, Louise of Savoy and Chancellor Duprat, sided with conservatives, a situation that left the “Lutheran faction” little hope.9 Indeed, shortly before the king’s children were ransomed in the summer of 1530, Oecolampadius informed Zwingli that conservatives were making life miserable for the remnant of the Meaux group protected by Marguerite at court: Lefèvre and Roussel. Francis I reportedly had threatened them with burning should they fail to dissuade her of their evangelical views.10 The rumor was probably exaggerated, but there was a core of truth to it: conservatives continued as they had in the 1520s to view Marguerite, Lefèvre, and Roussel as the leading heretics at court and were bringing pressure to bear on them. Even after the royal children’s return, the situation remained dangerous. Although Marguerite was able to have Roussel preach “Lutheran doctrines” at Blois, where the court was often in residence, the evangelical cause faced stiff opposition.11 Having completed his French translation of the Old Testament in 1530, Lefèvre felt so vexed by suspicion of heresy that in the summer of 1531 he asked to be allowed to retire from his position as royal librarian and tutor. Marguerite secured permission from the conservative grand master, Anne de Montmorency, who wielded increasing power at court, for Lefèvre to retire and placed the old scholar in safety at her court in Nérac.12 The reaction of Girolamo Aleandro, a papal legate who had long been involved in French affairs, to this seemingly minor bit of court intrigue reveals just how dangerous Catholic leaders across Europe believed it was to have a few prominent evangelicals lodged close to

9 “Si inclinat factio Lutherana, quod ut fiat ipsi sedulo dant operam, exorietur intolerabilis pseudomonachorum tyrannis. Apud nos regnant. Vicerunt, ut audio, et in Gallia favore matris regiae et cancellarii.” Allen 7, no. 2038, 468–469, ll. 31–34, also no. 2042, 472–473, and again in 1529, Allen 8, no. 2189, 209–216. 10 As cited in chapter 8, note 193. 11 See Girolamo Aleandro’s detailed report to the papal secretary Sanga on Lefèvre and Roussel’s activities. His account was based on information supplied by the Paris theologian Dr. Ortiz and, possibly, the Fabrists’ former comrade, Josse Clichtove. 30 December 1531, Herminjard 2, no. 363, 386–388. 12 Génin 1, no. 98, 279–280 (Jourda, Repertoire, 520).

legitimating the evangelical movement, –

385

the king. Writing to a papal secretary in Rome from Brussels, where he had received reports from well-placed sources, Aleandro rejoiced at the news of Lefèvre’s departure, not least because the aging scholar had not been allowed “to escape” to the Lutherans abroad as he had done in 1525. In response to this event, the legate concocted a plan conforming to the wishes of Clement VII, whereby Catholics could score a public relations victory over the heretics. If they could find a way to extract Lefèvre from the influence of Roussel, Aleandro believed that he could convince the spiritual father of French evangelicals to renounce his errors in translating and interpreting Scripture, which the legate believed were not so terrible compared with the heresies of the schismatics in the Empire.13 As Aleandro’s assessment reveals, with Lefèvre sidelined in 1531, Marguerite and Roussel represented the chief threats remaining at the French court. The danger they posed was real enough. Starting in 1531, Marguerite began preparing the way for the bold strokes to come in 1533 by putting evangelical pastors into pulpits and trying to shortcircuit the mechanisms of persecution in major centers throughout France. As we shall see, such efforts ultimately heightened tensions with French conservatives, steeling them to take strong measures in the face of Roussel’s and Nicolas Cop’s 1533 Paris sermons and to unleash a devastating backlash after the Placards. As for Marguerite’s active promotion of evangelical preaching, the evidence for such activity is less robust for the early part of the 1530s than for the heyday of her attempt to replicate the Meaux experiment on a national scale from 1523 to 1525. Aside from Roussel, only two evangelical preachers with direct ties to Marguerite are known to have operated during the early 1530s: Pierre Caroli and Étienne Lecourt. Both owed their positions in the duchy of Alençon to her, and both were under investigation for heretical preaching by 1530. Their cases will be taken up again shortly in the context of a far-reaching heresy investigation initiated at Alençon. Other preachers were active in cities throughout France during the early 1530s.14 Marguerite’s active fight against heresy investigations during these years reveals most clearly the extent of her reach and ambitions. One of the important findings in Raymond Mentzer’s and William Monter’s

13 14

See his letter in note 11. For rather piecemeal evidence, see Imbart, Origines 3, 368–415.

386

chapter nine

studies of heresy trials in France is that during the early 1530s the number and regional spread of such inquests rose sharply. For the first time since the crackdown at Meaux in 1525, prosecutors started uncovering and trying to crush heretical cells, leading to mass indictments of evangelicals at Toulouse, Aix, Alençon, and Paris.15 Following on their work, we can now show that just as she had been during the 1520s, Marguerite was a leading agent provocateur. In each of these four cases, she either had encouraged evangelicals to agitate in the first place or, at the very least, sought to protect those who fell victim to persecution after acting on their own initiative. Her involvement in promoting or protecting evangelicals at Toulouse and Aix is little known. Suspected but never substantiated before, her concerted efforts to foster and guard a sizeable evangelical network in her ducal territory of Alençon from the 1520s onward will be demonstrated below for the first time. These three episodes, which alarmed conservatives at court and across France, were significant preludes that ensured Marguerite’s high-profile campaign to promote the evangelical cause at Paris starting in Lent 1533 would lead to sharp conflict. Toulouse In late 1532 the Parlement of Toulouse took action against a large “Lutheran” cell discovered at the university.16 Earlier that year, heretical preaching by three Augustinian friars had stirred up the public. The Augustinians managed to escape, causing the local inquisitors to become more vigilant.17 Later that winter, the inquisitors ordered

15 Raymond A. Mentzer, Jr., Heresy Proceedings in Languedoc, 1500–1560, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, vol. 74, part 5 (Philadelphia, PA: The American Philosophical Society, 1984), 163–170; and Monter, Judging the French Reformation, 64–68 and 75–84. 16 Monter, Judging the French Reformation, 64–66, provides a useful summary citing both archival documents and two detailed studies of the most important source for this affair: the trial records of the heresy case brought against the Inquisitor Badet. These are David S. Hempsall, “The Languedoc 1520–1540: A Study of Pre-Calvinist Heresy in France,” ARG 62 (1971), 225–244, esp. 236–243, who reconstructs the nature and activity of the heretical group that was led by de Caturce and supposedly protected by Badet; and Mentzer, Heresy Proceedings in Languedoc, 26–34 and 161, who gives a clearer presentation and analysis of Badet’s probable role. 17 In the wake of their investigations in 1532, the Parlement of Toulouse ordered the arrest of another Augustinian for his heretical preaching in distant Nîmes, which is the earliest evidence for heretical activity at this future center of the Reformed Church. Ménard, Histoire de la ville de Nîmes, vol. 4, 117–118.

legitimating the evangelical movement, –

387

the arrest of over fifty suspects who had attended an academic dinner sponsored by university professor Jean de Caturce at which guests had taken turns giving evangelical speeches. Only twenty-two were captured. Judgment was swift: Caturce was executed, Jean de Boyssoné, a leading law professor, was forced, head shaven, to make a humiliating public retraction of his errors and to pay a heavy fine. Several others made similar retractions in Toulouse and towns in the region where they had broadcast their views. The royally appointed inquisitor of Toulouse, Arnaud de Badet, a close friend of Caturce, though he was not one of those indicted for attending the banquet, came under investigation soon thereafter because, already deemed a heretic by conservatives and embroiled in a contest over the legitimacy of his claim to office, he had suspiciously absented himself from Toulouse at the time of the heresy proceedings. The circle of these three ringleaders and their associates already had or soon developed close ties with Marguerite and her entourage. In the first place, the Inquisitor of the Faith, Badet obviously had enjoyed steady support at court up to that point. It was by royal order that his predecessor was fired in 1529 and that he was nominated in 1530 and then installed in 1531 despite opposition from rival Dominicans who even at that early date were accusing him of being a Lutheran.18 Raymond Mentzer has uncovered telling circumstantial evidence that Badet’s royal champion was Marguerite. Near the time he was appointed, Badet published two works that echoed her name, the Margarita virorum illustrium de futuri temporis dispositione praenoscenda in 1529 and, shortly thereafter, the Margarita sacrae scripturae on Paul’s epistles. Other circumstantial evidence points to the same conclusion. In late 1533, just when Francis I was meeting with Clement VII in southern France, Badet returned to Toulouse to face the heresy charges still pending against him armed with a papal letter exonerating him of any suspicion of heterodoxy.19 How he obtained the letter is not known,

18 On Badet’s appointment, see Hempsall, “Languedoc,” 236–237 and Mentzer, Heresy Proceedings, 20–21, 26–27 and 30. 19 Mentzer, Heresy Proceedings, 20–21, 31–32. The conservative Cardinal Legate Duprat may have signed Badet’s letter of nomination, Hempsall, “Languedoc,” 237, but it is unlikely that having just convened the Council of Sens, he would have approved of such a suspected heretic. Mentzer argues that Francis I had granted Marguerite the right to nominate Badet’s eventual successor, Rochette, as Inquisitor General (see below), which was probably also the case with Badet in 1530. See also B. Montagnes, “Un inquisiteur de Toulouse accusé d’hérésie en 1534: le dominicain Arnaud de Badet,” Revue d’histoire de l’Église de France 71 (1985), 233–251.

388

chapter nine

but the maneuver is strikingly similar in intent and effect to the one pursued by Gérard Roussel at about the same time. Like Badet, he secured a letter from Clement VII, almost certainly with the help of his patron Marguerite, which permitted him to read works by Luther and other heretics and similarly absolved him of all suspicion of heresy.20 Badet’s papal letter may not have carried much weight, for in 1534, still languishing under indictment, he appealed his case to the royal Grand Conseil. Ultimately, he resigned his office. In 1536 Marguerite secured the appointment of Louis de Rochette as his successor, which further implies she had had a similar role in Badet’s selection. Later, in 1538 and 1539, the Parlement of Toulouse would indict and execute Rochette and his lieutenant as Lutheran heretics.21 Thus closed a decade-long era in which the guardians of the faith at Toulouse, who had been chosen by Marguerite, were successively hounded out of office or to death. Raymond Mentzer has cautioned with good reason that unlike Rochette and his assistant, who appear to have been genuinely heretical in their views, Badet may only have been guilty of indulgence to an old friend, Caturce, and of a dabbling in the more suspect of humanistic studies, such as astrology.22 Such an assessment, however, must be taken as the bare minimum of his possible complicity in the evangelical network at Toulouse. During his 1534 trial, the prosecutor depicted Badet as far more involved: as a renegade inquisitor who ran interference for heretics like Caturce and headed an active proselytizing network in the region. One witness reported that Caturce had told him not to worry about possible investigations by the local inquisitors because another inquisitor, Caturce’s ally Badet, had decided to protect true Christians (maintiendroyt les bons Chrestiens) and had promised to preach good doctrine, meaning that of Martin Luther.23 Under the cover of Badet’s

20 Henry Heller made the fine discovery of Clement VII’s undated letter in favor of Roussel and cogently argues that it probably dates, like Badet’s letter, to the period of the pope’s visit to Marseille in late 1533, a time when Roussel needed protection in the face of the turmoil caused by his Lenten sermons at Paris. See for text and interpretation, Henry Heller, “An Unknown Letter from Clement VII to Gérard Roussel,” BHR 38 (1976), 489–492. 21 On the pursuit of Rochette and his lieutenant as a sort of vendetta against Marguerite, see Monter, Judging the French Reformation, 78–79. 22 Mentzer, Heresy Proceedings, 32–33, 161. 23 “Car aussi iceluy du Badeto luy [Caturce] avoit promys qu’il prescheroit le matin tout bien . . . et entendoyt par ledit Martin de Luther.” Hempsall, “Languedoc,” 239, relates this and a number of other intriguing details from the long, eighty-folio record

legitimating the evangelical movement, –

389

protection, Caturce and his colleagues were, according to the testimony of witnesses, meeting in secret to study the Bible and sending out preachers throughout the region in a broad evangelizing effort. As for the Toulouse group’s doctrines and reforming intent, the ten articles Jean de Boyssoné was made to retract publicly in the presence of the other condemned heretics provide the best available evidence. These articles contain a thoroughgoing set of evangelical theses founded on the core principles of Scripture as the sole authority for establishing doctrine and justification by faith alone (articles 1 and 10). The remaining articles criticize the church’s teachings on faith, purgatory, papal excommunication, indulgences, prayers to the saints, and free will for exceeding what can be proven from biblical texts. Ominously, like Luther this group of university jurists had attacked the legitimacy of the papacy, claiming that only the first four councils were ecumenical and that “the See of Rome has been vacant for five hundred years.”24 Although it is not clear what church structure they would have recognized as valid in its place, they certainly had rejected the pope’s claim to be the spiritual head of Christendom as well as the traditions backed by his authority. William Monter rightly asserts that the trials of 1532–1533 effectively gutted the evangelical group (“nascent Protestantism”) at Toulouse. Yet, for many of its members this was only an early bit of turmoil in their long careers. Marguerite helped to rehabilitate a number of them, some of whom remained committed to the evangelical cause. The Franciscan Pierre de Nuptiis, whom the Faculty of Theology of the University of Paris would investigate and censure again in 1533 and 1535, ended up with a companion from Toulouse in Marguerite’s employ in her city of

of testimony at Badet’s trial, (AD Aude H 418), including reports on the Toulouse group’s preaching and their connections to Montpellier, Montauban, Condom, and elsewhere in the Languedoc, where they were accused of wanting to raise a “millenarian” uprising in combination with German Lutherans. As Bourrilly and Weiss noted a century ago, such a rich source, so rare for early Reformation France, deserves to be edited; see “Jean du Bellay, les Protestants et la Sorbonne (1529–1535),” BSHPF 52 (1903), 193–231; 53 (1904), 97–143, 103. 24 Mentzer, Heresy Proceedings, 132, provides the fullest modern summary of Boyssoné’s views, noting that it is difficult to know if Boyssoné actually espoused these doctrines. The specificity of the accusations, argued as carefully nuanced legal arguments, and their logical order, however, seem to be worthy of a jurist like Boyssoné and something more than the vague caricature of Protestant doctrines typical in heresy sentences.

390

chapter nine

Bourges.25 If the Histoire ecclésiastique is to be believed, her longtime protégé, Georges d’Armagnac, having already begun his education during the Meaux reform, was also part of the Toulouse university group.26 He would go on aided by her patronage to rise through the ecclesiastical ranks and become a cardinal. His Toulouse experience, however, may well have set him on track to become progressively more conservative over the years.27 Did others like d’Armagnac move away from their early attraction to evangelical beliefs? Pierre de Nuptiis seems to have kept his evangelical views but, like so many others, chose to dissemble them in the face of increasing persecution. Such would also appear to be the case with the third main target of the Toulouse investigations, Jean de Boyssoné. In June 1534, rehabilitated and again sporting the doctor’s bonnet at Toulouse (presumably over re-grown locks), Boyssoné wrote to Gérard Roussel in familiar terms to recommend a student who had business at Marguerite’s court and ask for his greetings to be passed on to the queen.28 The letter implies that they had a relatively close relationship, one dating back to well before Boyssoné’s troubles at Toulouse. He and his close friend, Matthieu Pac, who was indicted with him at Toulouse in 1532, would go on to enjoy Marguerite’s patronage for years to come; she offered Boyssoné a position at the University of Bourges in 1535, which he declined, and Pac a stable position in the same city in 1537, from which he rose to become a leading magistrate in her duchy of Berry by 1543.29 Boyssoné would not land in significant trouble for

25 Monter, Judging the French Reformation, 66; and Farge, Registre 2, 9B, 11B, 37C, and 38A. 26 Theodore Beza (attributed to), Histoire ecclésiastique des églises réformées au royaume de France, 3 vols., ed. G. Baum and Ed. Cunitz, (Paris: Librairie Fischbacher, 1883–1889; repr. Nieuwkoop: B. de Graaf, 1974), vol. 1, 12 (pagination of the original 1580 edition). 27 See Nicole Lemaître, Le Rouergue flamboyant: Le clergé et les fidèles du diocèse de Rodez, 1417–1563 (Paris: Cerf, 1988). 28 For the text, see Joseph Buche, “Lettres inédites latines de Jean de Boyssoné et de ses amis,” Revue des langues romanes 38 (1895), 181–183, and date, Henri Jacoubet, “La correspondance de Jehan de Boyssoné,” Annales du Midi 42 (1930), no. 57, 257–258. 29 See Jacoubet, “La correspondance de Jehan de Boyssoné,” Annales du Midi 42 (1930), letters nos. 27 and 28, 261–262; no. 63, 276, no. 75, 282, and no. 92, 288; and Annales du Midi 43 (1931), no. 161, 404–405. Étienne Dolet thought Boyssoné should have taken the position at Bourges, see Étienne Dolet, Correspondance: Répertoire analytique et chronologique suivi du texte de ses lettres latines, ed. Claude Longeon, THR 188 (Geneva: Droz, 1982), no. 53, 62–63. Again, in 1540 she offered Pac a position in Béarn, see Jourda, Marguerite 2, 1092.

legitimating the evangelical movement, –

391

heresy again—in 1551 he was accused of concubinage and breaking the Lenten fast—and he remained on intimate terms with a wide circle of humanists and diplomats in the orbits around Marguerite and the Du Bellay brothers.30 In sum, although Toulouse was not one of Marguerite’s domain territories, already before the 1532 persecution she had some connection with three principal members of the tightly knit circle of ‘heretics’ there: Badet, Boyssoné, and d’Armagnac. In the aftermath, she certainly helped to manage the careers of a handful of survivors, indicating her sympathy for their evangelical activity, which, whether or not she had consciously fostered it through the selection of Badet, was clearly consonant in doctrine and intent with the programs she had already supported at Meaux, Bourges, and Alençon, and was on the verge of broaching in Paris. The Vaudois of Aix Marguerite and her network were probably less closely connected with the large community of Waldensians (Vaudois) in the Dauphiné, who began to be persecuted in earnest by the Parlement of Aix from 1530 to 1533. Yet she plainly intervened to help quash a rapidly expanding inquisition just at the moment when the judges were sending the first victims to the flames. It was also the period when the Vaudois were establishing their first formal ties with the Reformed territories of Switzerland.31

30 His surviving poetry and correspondence is almost wholly directed to the major and minor evangelical writers and statesmen of the day: Étienne Dolet, Marot, Rabelais, Pac, Visagier, Salmon Macrin, Jean and Guillaume Du Bellay, Guillaume Bigot, and others. See in addition to his register of Boyssoné’s correspondence, Henri Jacoubet’s summary listing of Les poésies latines de Jehan de Boyssoné (Toulouse: Édouard Privat, 1931). 31 Gabriel Audisio, the master of Waldensian studies, has shown how important the documents produced by the investigation of the inquisitor Roma (AN J 851), particularly the deposition of a Waldensian barbe are for our understanding of this medieval heretical group as it evolved in the early sixteenth century. The dossier provides good evidence that just as Roma was ratcheting up the mechanism of persecution, their religious leaders had decided under the influence of Guillaume Farel and Antoine Saunier at the synod of Chalphoran (1532) to move their communities to adopt the Reformed faith, despite the sizeable doctrinal and ecclesiological differences between traditional Waldensian faith and practice and the new evangelical movement. See his clear analysis and the fascinating trial record in Le barbe et l’inquisiteur: procès du

392

chapter nine

The inquisitor, Jean de Roma, was single-handedly responsible for organizing the sweeping crusade. He pursued the Waldensians with zeal and brutality; they begged the king to restrain him.32 Royal orders, issued on 19 February 1533, from Paris, called for an immediate halt to Roma’s ongoing trials and for him, in turn, to face investigation for exceeding his authority and using torture excessively when interrogating suspects.33 Again, it seems that Marguerite was wearing the white hat. Henri-Léonard Bordier has supplied the key evidence that proves Marguerite, who was with Francis I in Paris at the time, orchestrated the royal response to Roma just weeks before she was about to have Roussel begin his Lenten preaching campaign. Her secretary, François d’Assi, carried the royal letters against Roma from Paris and then stayed in the south to manage the case, including the deposition of evidence against Roma from twenty-three witnesses.34 Like the special royal commissioners set up to examine (and exonerate) Berquin, Lefèvre d’Étaples, and others during the 1520s, two of the three judges appointed to try Roma were likely chosen because of their sympathy for the victims of persecution. One was the president of the Parlement of Aix, Barthélemy de Chasseneux, who would go on to protect the Waldensians of Mérindol until his death in 1542.35 The second, Antoine Honoré d’Oraison, seigneur de Cadenet, was an important local lord and may have been selected because of his ties with Marguerite and sympathy with her views. The evidence for this conjecture is circumstantial but telling: he owned a manuscript, emblazoned with his arms, containing a translation of a sermon by Luther on preparing for death, penned and dedicated to Marguerite in the 1520s by his eponymous nephew.36

barbe vaudois Pierre Griot par l’inquisiteur Jean de Roma (Apt, 1532) (Aix-en-Provence: Édisud, 1979). 32 Over 150 were investigated and six executed. Monter, Judging the French Reformation, 76–78, summarizing Gabriel Audisio’s work, outlines the basic events of the investigation and backlash against Roma. 33 Herminjard 7, nos. 405a, 407a, 414bis, and 416bis, pp. 465–488, provides large extracts of letters from the Roma dossier, AN J 851, subsequently culled by Audisio for the barbe Griot’s testimony. 34 For a summary of their testimony, see Jean Sambuc, “Étude analytique du manuscrit J. 851 des Archives Nationales: Document sur le procès de Jean de Roma, inquisiteur,” BSHPF 109 (1963), 180–195. 35 Some historians report that he was murdered for protecting the Waldensians, see Herminjard 7, 469 n. 1. 36 In the dedicatory letter to Marguerite, Antoine, the nephew, plainly affirms the work to be a translation of a tract by Luther, which he thought likely to please her. He offered it to her as a sign of his “obligation, observation et servitude que j’ay envers

legitimating the evangelical movement, –

393

Alençon The third major heresy inquest of the early 1530s occurred in Marguerite’s ducal seat, Alençon. This episode has left clear evidence of her responsibility for the formation of the group deemed heretical there and of her desperate efforts to save them. The duchy of Alençon was in Normandy, the province Marguerite’s envoys publicized to Bucer at Augsburg in 1530 as a “little Germany.”37 If heresy proceedings are any measure, then the region deserved the reputation. From 1528 to 1533, the Parlement of Rouen conducted over thirty-seven heresy trials, resulting in five executions and many other lesser punishments. Several nobles and seven members of the clergy were among the defendants.38 Notably, however, almost all of those indicted came from ‘upper’ Normandy (Haute-Normandie). Unlike the northern tier of the province, until 1533 only one person from the duchy of Alençon, in the ‘lower’ half of the province (Basse-Normandie), was tried for heresy. As will become evident below, this disparity was not because active evangelicals were lacking there, but because of Marguerite’s protective influence. Her ducal exchequer court of Alençon was autonomous, free from oversight by the Parlements of Rouen or Paris, and its officers were in Marguerite’s pay.39 The clergy of Alençon, however, were subject to ecclesiastical courts of the bishop of Sées and his superior, the archbishop of Rouen, whose jurisdictions over the clergy overlapped with the purview of the ducal court over the laity. Étienne Lecourt, curate of Condé-sur-Sarthe, a small town in Marguerite’s duchy near the city of Alençon, was brought to justice in church courts sometime between 1528 and 1531.40 He may

Vous.” The tone of the letter and his claim of a debt of gratitude to Marguerite point to some pre-existing relationship. See Robert Marichal, “Antoine d’Oraison, premier traducteur français de Luther,” BHR 9 (1947), 81–82. 37 See chapter 2, at note 16, and chapter 8, at note 191. 38 Figures complied from Charles Oursel, Notes pour servir à l’histoire de la Réforme en Normandie au temps de François Ier, principalement dans le diocèse de Rouen (Caen: Delesque, 1913), 10–28. This work, a summary of notes culled from his examination of archival documents at Rouen and Paris, is the most important published source available for the history of heterodoxy in Normandy during the early sixteenth century. 39 La Ferrière-Percy, Livre de dépenses, 172–175, and Lefranc, Comptes, 71, 82, and 89–90. 40 The chronology of the heresy proceedings against Lecourt is little understood. Oursel suggests that he was first indicted by the inquisitor of Sées, perhaps as early as 1524, that he retracted certain propositions and was indicted again with his case ending up before the archbishop of Rouen’s court well before September 1531. At this point it

394

chapter nine

have owed his appointment to that benefice to her, as we know he did his installation in 1528 as administrator of the hospital in another nearby town, Mortaigne, which, in turn, he resigned at her order in 1530.41 Much like Marguerite’s protégé Berquin, who went to the stake in 1529, Lecourt was obstinate, obstreperous in defending his beliefs, and overconfident, perhaps, about the ability of his patron to protect him. He waged an aggressive battle against his accusers that all but ensured his eventual condemnation and execution in December 1533. To him we shall return below. Other less confrontational evangelical clerics and laypersons in and around Alençon remained untroubled until the summer of 1533 when two men committed a shocking act of iconoclasm, which gave Marguerite’s enemies an opportunity to attack this safe haven for evangelicals.42 On the night of the feast of Corpus Christi, 11 June, they broke into a chapel in Alençon, stole statues of the Virgin Mary and St. Claude, and hung them from the gutter of a house. The ducal authorities of Alençon quickly caught and sentenced the culprits, handing down mild punishments. The court soon heard news of the public execution of the Mother of God and St. Claude in effigy on the feast of the Lord’s body and blood, which was a symbolic attack on Mary and the saints’ powers of intercession and a challenge to the doctrine of the real presence, as well asked the Faculty of Theology of Paris to judge several sets of propositions maintained by Lecourt, some signed by him, others taken from the testimony of witnesses, as well as his French translation of the theses maintained by Franz Kolb and Berthold Haller at the Bern disputation in January 1528. See, Oursel, Notes, 31–44; cf. Nathaniel Weiss, “Étienne Lecourt, curé de Condé-sur-Sarthe, brûlé à Rouen le 11 décembre 1533,” BSHPF 36 (1887), 299–314, esp. 305 n. 3 and 309 for his suggestion that the bishop of Sées was reluctant to help in the archiepiscopal court’s trial of Lecourt, which seems unlikely given the other instances of this prelate’s pursuit of heretics. Concerned local inquisitors were given a boost in their fight against heresy in December 1530, when the crown ordered all royal justices to aid juges délégués newly appointed by Chancellor Duprat throughout France. See Sutherland, Huguenot Struggle for Recognition, 334–335. 41 Gérasime Despierres discovered the notarial act of Lecourt’s resignation of his post at Mortaigne “L’imprimerie à Alençon de 1529 à 1575,” Bulletin historique et philosophique du Comité des travaux historiques et scientifiques (1893); repr. Établissement d’imprimeries à Alençon de 1529 à 1575 (Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1894), 18, n. 1. 42 Key sources and studies for this event and the aftermath include Paul Guérin, “Poursuites contre les réformés d’Alençon, 1533–1534,” BSHPF 33 (1884), 112–128 and 162–175; Despierres, “L’imprimerie,” 27–30; Oursel, Notes, 44–52; Benjamin Robert, “Les débuts du protestantisme à Alençon” BSHPF 85 (1936), 365–390; and Bernard Roussel, “Marguerite de Navarre: Les débuts de la Réforme et les troubles d’Alençon, 1530–1534,” Société historique et archéologique de l’Orne 105 (1986), 87–106.

legitimating the evangelical movement, –

395

as the indulgent treatment of the perpetrators by the local court. On 6 July, less than a month after the event, Francis I, overriding the ducal court’s prerogatives, authorized a special commission of two parlementary magistrates to re-investigate the act and re-try those responsible. On 19 September, when he was on the way south to meet the pope, Francis renewed their commission from Arles. The two deputized judges conducted an extensive investigation, compiled lengthy dossiers, incarcerated several defendants, but did not proceed to pass final judgment on and sentence the accused. On 7 August 1534, almost a full year after establishing the first commission, Francis I appointed a second judicial board of six judges to pass sentence. Reaching Alençon on 31 August this second special commission ripped through the cases of forty suspects in a mere three weeks. The judges rendered swift and exemplary justice.43 See table 3. Five of those defendants already in prison, about half, were sentenced to death. The two iconoclasts received the harshest sentences, punishments that symbolically mimicked and ritually expiated their crime: first their right hands were cut off and nailed up at the place where they had committed the sacrilege, then they were hanged by the neck for three hours, after which their heads were cut off, impaled on spears, and placed at the two principal gates to the town, and finally their bodies were lashed to cross-pieces and displayed at the town pillory. Two others already in prison were ordered to be whipped and to make amende honorable, a public procession during which defendants confessed their crimes and begged forgiveness from human and heavenly powers; another was sentenced to do simple amende honorable. Twenty-six others were summoned (ajournés) to appear before the court to be tried on pain of being judged guilty of the charges against them, having their goods confiscated, and being banished or sentenced to harsher punishment if appropriate. The verdicts of fifteen of those

43 Data compiled in table 3 is from the surviving trial record, which is obviously incomplete. Although forty people were indicted, it only specifies the judges’ final decisions in twenty-nine cases, including four continuances (K and I). The last recorded sentence was rendered on Thursday, 17 September, yet the royal prosecutor hired by the special commission from the Sénéchaussée du Maine to prosecute these cases arrived on 4 September and was paid for nineteen days work, thus at least through 22 September. One deduces from this that the commission sat for several more days after the seventeenth and handed down further verdicts against the eleven suspects whose final sentencing is not preserved. See Guérin, “Poursuites,” esp. 123 and 175, Robert, “Les débuts du protestantisme à Alençon,” as well as Oursel, Notes, 147, n. 1.

396

chapter nine

Table 3. Verdicts Rendered Against the Alençon Forty, September 1534 Code

= Verdict

#

In prison

†

Execution

5

5

Wh

whipping & amende honorable

2

2

A

amende honorable

1

1

K

case remanded to the king

2

S

clerics’ cases remanded to the bishop of Sées

2

Aj&†

ajourné, sentenced to death in absentia

4

4

Aj&B

ajourné, banished in absentia

3

3

Aj&R

ajourné, 20 écus reward for capture of priests in flight

2

2

Aj&M

ajourné, maison (acquitted)

6

Aj&NR

ajourné, no record of verdict

11

I

further investigation, no verdict rendered

Totals

2 40

In flight

Appeared

1?

1

2?

6 5 + 5? 1 9 + 2?

1 1

14 + 6?

9

ajournés have survived. Six who answered the summons were acquitted; nine others had taken flight and were sentenced in absentia. The fugitives had good reason to fear judgment. Evidently deeming them to be severe threats, the commissioners condemned four to death, banished three, and issued a large bounty for the arrest of the two priests among them.44 The harsh punishment of so many of her subjects—the most brutal heresy prosecution in France to that date, one capped with nine death sentences—was a defeat for Marguerite and a stain on her name. No one, however, has realized before how desperately she fought to prevent the special commissions of 1533 and 1534, how much she 44

The fates of the others will be related below when the profile of these heretics and their relationship to Marguerite is taken up. Hereafter, those who figure among the Alençon Forty will have the code of their verdict signaled in parenthesis upon first mention of their name.

legitimating the evangelical movement, –

397

did to help the victims once the carnage was over, or how close this local network was to her.45 In three letters to Francis I, two of them hitherto misdated and hence overlooked, we see Marguerite struggling mightily, but ultimately unsuccessfully, to stave off the royal commissions. Her household accounts, which have been wholly ignored with regard to the inquest at Alençon, reveal her care for the victims. Most importantly, by combining this evidence with the trial records and archival acts unearthed by scholars who have made preliminary studies of the evangelical group at Alençon, we can trace all of the following: her responsibility for fostering the evangelical group there; the profile of this local network and its connection to her household; and even the outline of the doctrines held by its members. First, we turn to her desperate efforts to save them. Sometime after Francis I empowered the first royal commission on 6 July 1533, or reauthorized it on 19 September, Marguerite wrote a letter to her brother to avert the likely dire consequences for her and the evangelicals of Alençon should the judges proceed to sentencing. In this letter, she is plainly trying to justify the original punishments imposed on the two iconoclasts by the exchequer court of Alençon: My lord, the confidence that you are gracious to have in me induces me to acquaint you with what has been done at Alençon. The fact of the matter is that the two young men have been tried at all levels of justice, not only at Alençon, but since most [people there] were their relatives, also in all the assize courts of the region, in which the lawyers and people adjudicate according to their customary law. That which was carried out [by the courts was done] without any mercy or moderation, as I trust your commissioners, whom I have asked to review the trial, will recognize, notwithstanding the privileges you, my lord, know the court and exchequer of Alençon to enjoy.46

45

Jourda’s brief account is inadequate, Marguerite, 177. “Monseigneur, la seureté qu’il vous plest avoir de moy me fera vous advertir de ce qui a esté fait à Alençon. C’est que les deux jeunes homes ont esté jugés par toutes les barres, non seulement d’Alençon, pour ce que la pluspart estoient leur parens, mais de toutes les assises du pays, où se sont trouvés tous advocas et gens qui ne jugent que selon leur loy. Ce qui a esté executé sans nulle grace ne moderacion, comme j’espère que vos commissaires connoistront, auquels j’ay prié revoir le process, nonobstant les privileges que vous, Monseigneur, savez estre entre la justice et eschiquier d’Alençon.” Marguerite to Francis I, undated, written after 19 September 1533, date of the first royal commission, and before 7 August 1534, date of the second royal commission, Génin 2, no. 80, 131 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 650). Génin cites Odolant Desnos, Mémoires historiques sur Alençon, 2 vols. (1787), vol. 2, 430, for the information about the exchequer court’s right to judge cases without appeal to Normandy. For the dating of 46

398

chapter nine

Though the act of the Alençon iconoclasts was symbolically even more outrageous than the one perpetrated against a statue of the Virgin in Paris in 1528, which prompted Francis I to make a grand gestures of his orthodoxy and commitment to stamp out heresy,47 Marguerite portrayed the original, lenient sentence passed against them as sufficient and in keeping with the norms of Norman justice. To fend off further judicial action by the special commission, Marguerite appealed to Francis’s self-interest. She warned him that should he persist in his intention to impose it in place of the ducal court, he would risk creating a precedent that the relatives of her deceased first husband, Charles d’Alençon, (les héritiers d’Alençon), could exploit to reassert their claim to the duchy—an apanage territory, which had escheated to the crown after the duke’s death—just as they had succeeded in doing previously at Argentan. Thus, she insists, if Francis were to allow the commission to sit, he might lose the 10,000 l.t. in rent and seigneurial rights, whose usufruct Marguerite had been enjoying since Charles’s demise and was safeguarding until the king decided to give the duchy to one his children. Following the mild rebuke, “I beg you not to allow such things again without warning me first,” she assures him that pending his change of mind, she would inform everyone that the special commission came at her request, and promises to manage the affair in such a way that the king would be obeyed, but no harm come to his interests.48 In a second letter we see that once the first special commission had completed its investigations and imprisoned several suspects, Francis I had evidently agreed to her request that the cases be given back to the ducal court at Alençon for final judgment and punishment.49 Marguerite’s missive is long, lawyerly, and full of thanks. She explains this letter, based on its companion missive, see note 50. Still, Marguerite’s reference to other courts, “all the assize courts of the region” may point to subsequent judgments rendered between the original ones in Alençon and the impending visit of the first commission, but she was trying to stave off the latter. 47 Knecht, Renaissance Warrior, 282–283. 48 “Ce qui me fait le vous escriptre, c’est que je vous supplie ne permettre plus telles choses sans m’en fere advertir; car, sans moy, l’on avoit fait chose pour donner bonne couleur à vous fere perdre les acquetz, qui sont dix mille livres de rente.” Génin 2, no. 80, 132 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 650). 49 “Monseigneur, j’ai receu une lectre qu’il vous a pleu escriptre à vos commissaires d’Alençon, où vous leur commandez m’apporter leurs informacions et procedeures pour faire sur icelles executer les pugnysions requises.” Marguerite to Francis I, undated, written after 19 September 1533, date of the first royal commission, and before 7 August 1534, date of the second royal commission, Génin 2, no. 81, 134–136, 134 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 651).

legitimating the evangelical movement, –

399

that by agreeing to her request he had done an immense service not only for her, but chiefly for himself by preventing Charles d’Alençon’s relatives, who had been employing “underhanded means,” from laying claim to the duchy. Marguerite also tells Francis that she was hugely relieved since he had thereby defended her from attacks on three fronts. He had quashed the rumor that the commissioners had been sent to investigate her administration of the duchy over the past twelve years.50 Moreover, he had deflated the arrogance of those who, after having done as much harm to you as they could, congratulated themselves about winning a great victory over me, one who during your imprisonment feared them greatly and with good cause.51

Marguerite was alluding to conservatives in the Faculty of Theology and Parlement of Paris, who were, she implies, celebrating another triumph over her, like the one they won during Francis’s captivity when they had been able to force Louise of Savoy to reverse royal policies on religion and to allow mass indictments against Marguerite’s protégés at Meaux and beyond.52 Finally, Marguerite asserted that Francis’s public expression of confidence in her would remove any suspicion that she was a heretic or involved in the sacrilege at Alençon.53 Knowing that

50 Génin and Jourda took Marguerite’s reference to all that she had done in the duchy of Alençon over the past twelve years to means since Charles d’Alençon’s death in 1525, and thus dated this and the preceding letter to 1537, whereas she is probably referring to the last royal commission sent to reform the exchequer of Alençon in 1522, thus dating the letters, as the content implies, to 1534 during the middle of the Alençon heresy scandal. See Ordonnances 3, no. 316, 174: “Mandement au Parlement de Commettre Quatre Conseillers pour aller siéger à l’échiquier du duché d’Alençon, 17 juin 1522.” Moreover, Génin and Jourda’s dating to 1537 cannot hold, since Francis I did not confirm Marguerite’s right to the usufruct of Alençon and control of the exchequer court until his return from Spain in April and July 1526, (see CAF 1, no. 2330, 440–441, and no. 2411, 456). Yet neither twelve years after that date, 1538, nor for that matter any time after 1534, were there further heresy proceedings at Alençon largely because Marguerite was effective in preventing them, see Monter, Judging the French Reformation, 158. 51 “D’aultre part, vous avez ousté l’orgueil de ceux qui, après avoir fait contre vous tout le pis qu’ils ont peu, se vantoient d’avoir la victoire de moy, qui, durant vostre prison, les ay tenus en telle crainte que je devois.” Génin 2, no. 81, 134–136, 134 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 651). 52 In 1525, Noël Beda specifically cited the court’s hindrance of the bishop of Sées’ heresy investigations—possibly of Caroli or Lecourt—as one of the chief causes of its disrepute for fostering heresy. See chapter 6, note 171. 53 “Vous avez ousté l’opinion que plusieurs avoient, que j’estois si suspecte en cete matiere, qu’il ne vous plesoit vous en fier ny en moy, ny en nul du duché.” Génin 2, no. 81, 134 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 651).

400

chapter nine

her reputation (and consequently the king’s majesty) and, more importantly, her brother’s good will towards her were at stake, she promised to ensure the exchequer court of Alençon would appropriately sentence those who had been charged by the royal commission.54 Her handling of the affair, she reassured him, would reflect favorably on his reputation for piety and religious zeal. She implored him, consequently, “in order for the truth to prove everyone’s views about you and me to be false” to write to the exchequer court, ordering them: to conclude the cases pertaining to the honor of God and ensure that these matters be put to rest, as much the cases of the evil causers of scandal, as those who make false accusations against others.

The iconoclasm at Alençon had dragged Marguerite to the center of a scandal, which threatened to ruin her seigniorial power, reputation, and standing with her brother. Even so, while solemnly promising to obey her brother’s desire for the iconoclasts to receive stiffer sentencing, she strove to lessen the potential damage to her subjects. She admitted the wicked would have to be punished, but intimated they were fewer in number and less formidable than false accusers claimed. Marguerite’s maneuver to soften the blow at Alençon had worked beautifully to that point, but her success was fleeting, the outcome disastrous. By August 1534, Francis I was induced by someone—a fair guess, as will become clear when turning to the Cop affair at Paris, would be Chancellor Antoine Duprat or Anne de Montmorency—to reverse the agreement he had reached with Marguerite and turn the cases of the Alençon Forty over, instead, to a second royal commission of conservative judges from Paris. In the end she gave the new commission her formal blessing, but their brutal sentencing was anything but

54 For this and the following quotations, which are italicized, “Vous suppliant croire, Monseigneur, que ne vous pouvant aultrement rendre la grace que vous me faites, je m’acquiteray si bien à faire l’execusion de ceux qui seront chargés par le procès des commissaires, que je vous rendray l’honneur que vous me faites, en m’aquittant selon vostre vouloir; en sorte que l’on connoistra que tout ce qui peult estre en moi ne taiche que à honorer la nature, l’exemple et la nourriture prise de vous, tant en vostre foy que en vostre zele. Et afin, Monseigneur, que la vérité puisse pour vous et pour moy desmentir tout le monde, je vous supplie escripre aux gens tenant vostre eschiquier à Alençon, que, tous affaires lessés, ils ayent à vuider les choses concernant l’honneur de Dieu, et donner ordre que tous ces propous cessent, tant des meschans scandaleux, que aussy des faulx accusateurs.” She goes on to remind Francis that the ducal court was staffed by competent men, who also served in the Parlements of Paris and Rouen as well as in his own Grand Conseil. Génin 2, no. 81, 135 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 651).

legitimating the evangelical movement, –

401

her wish. In a third, abject letter, she capitulated and, putting the best face on the matter, cooperated in order to salvage, if not her reputation or her protégés at Alençon whose fates were now beyond her control, at least her relationship with her brother: My lord . . . your letter reached me in a time of need to soothe the worries I have had these past few days; and indeed, seeing that the confidence and good opinion you are pleased to have of me have not weakened for any reasons, which some may have given to you in this matter, has given me such great contentment that more than ever I want to reassure you that I do not and could never have any other desire than to obey you and comply wholly with what I understand to be your will.55

In conformity with Francis’s wish, Marguerite had, she reports, spoken to the commissioners being sent to Alençon to assure them that she would do all in her power to ensure their good treatment there and ordered the officers of the exchequer court to hand over any trial records in their possession and to cooperate. In the aftermath of this defeat Marguerite succored many victims of the persecution. The available evidence is scant, coming mainly from the rolls of her household accounts. By comparing the names of the ‘Alençon Forty’ with the lists of her servants, one finds that twenty-seven of them had connections to Marguerite. Eleven of them were patronized by her over the years, many as members of her household or officers in her duchy. Another sixteen appear to have had relatives employed by her. While scholars who have studied the Alençon Forty have rightly suspected that Marguerite attempted to help them, to date no one has demonstrated that she did or adequately explored the ties uniting all

55 “Monseigneur, . . . vostre lectre m’est venue au besoing pour la consolacion des ennuis que j’ay eus ces jours passez; mais voyant que la seureté et bonne estime qu’il vous plest [pleust] avoir de moy n’est point diminuée pour nulle occasion que l’on vous en puisse donner, cela me donne ung si grant contentement, que plus que jamais je desire vous faire voir que je n’ay ny ne saurois avoir aultre desir que vous obéir et suivre entièrement ce que je pense estre vostre intencion.” Génin 2, no. 38, 81 (Jourda, Répertoire, 573). Jourda dates the letter to the time of the first commission of July 1533, but Marguerite’s abject submission to Francis’s will and the terms of that submission—giving aid to the commission and ordering the exchequer court at Alençon to cooperate—correspond exactly with Francis’ orders to the exchequer of Alençon in the letter presented to them by the second commission on 31 August 1534. Indeed, the officers at Alençon did offer various forms of resistance during the trial. The judges, in turn, did not trust them, and called in a royal prosecutor from the Sénéchaussée du Maine, rather than employ one from the ducal court. See Paul Guérin, “Poursuites contre les réformés d’Alençon, 1533–1534,” BSHPF 33 (1884), 112–128 and 162–175; esp. 114–118, 121, 123, and 166.

402

chapter nine

of them. In being able to show that Marguerite helped the victims on a massive scale, we have a strong indication of how close she felt to the evangelical circle uncovered and persecuted at Alençon.56 These cases—individual cases and the connections between them—reveal a small world of shared belief and the close connection between the queen and the commoners of Alençon. One of the two iconoclasts, Jehan Commyn or Coumyn (†), who admitted to and refused to apologize for his deeds, was executed by the commission for his “execrable blasphemy and scandal” and left behind a wife and possibly a son.57 A decade after his execution, in 1544, Marguerite quietly ordered her officers to return the confiscated goods of Jehan Commyn to his widow.58 More than a mere act of mercy, her secretary’s record of the act registers an implicit refusal to recognize the justice of Commyn’s sentencing. The entry relates that he had been executed for “lèse-majesté,” not “lèse-majesté divine” or heresy, that is, for disturbing the king’s peace and undermining his authority—to which Marguerite had had to bow—not fundamentally for attacking God or true religion. And could not the “Jehan Commyn, brodeur,” appearing on her rolls in 1549 as a valet de chambre, have been a relation, his son?59 That Jehan Commyn would have rubbed shoulders with Paul Mabon (Aj&NR). Mabon had been the salt tax official of Alençon in 1534, and the commission had ordered his indictment based the testimony of Jehan Commyn, the elder, and the other iconoclast, Antoine Laignel (†).60 After the 1534 persecution, Mabon ended up on Marguerite’s rolls as a valet de chambre at the latest by 1539, rose to the office of secretary by 1544, the year in which Marguerite bestowed huge wedding gifts of 575 l.t. each on two of his daughters, and became a pensioner by 1549.61 His daughters married “François Ledevin, one of her servants, and Balthasar Richard, one of her valets de chambre.” Although not

56

Despierres, Oursel, and Robert all supposed as much but lacked evidence. Guérin, “Poursuites,” 115 and 169. 58 La Ferrière-Percy, Livre de dépenses, 72. 59 La Ferrière-Percy, Livre de dépenses, 180. See below for another instance of Marguerite supporting the son of an executed heretic, Étienne de La Forge. 60 Laignel too may have had a relation subsequently employed by Marguerite: a “Me. Giles Laisnel” was one of her secretaries in 1544. See La Ferrière-Percy, Livre de dépenses, 177. 61 Also spelled Maban and Mabou, see Lefranc, Comptes, 91, and La Ferrière-Percy, Livre de dépenses, 79, 177, 190, and 209. 57

legitimating the evangelical movement, –

403

noticed hitherto, no one can take it as a passing coincidence that a smith named François “Ledevyn” (father of the former?) was one of three heresy suspects from Alençon ajournés after the Paris Placards in 1534,62 the other two being Marguerite’s protégés Simon Du Bois and Pierre Caroli (K). To them we shall return. So too, Marguerite Edme (Aj&B), who had taken flight when the commission descended on Alençon in the fall of 1534 and had been sentenced to banishment from the realm for her imputed heresy, ended up back in France supported by the queen as one of her pensioners by 1549.63 While in Marguerite’s train these rehabilitated heretics and their children may have sampled the culinary delights of the household servant, René de La Fosse, pâtissier, who seems to have been the relation of another Alençon refugee: a certain “de La Fosse” (Aj&NR), the female servant of the noble woman, Jeanne d’Avoise of Radon (K), was sought by the second royal commission.64 René de La Fosse, “paticier de Madame la princesse de Navarre,” registered his marriage at Alençon to a Simone “Erard,” who would seem to be related to another one of Marguerite’s kitchen servants, François Hérard.65 The last name and place of origin of the two “de La Fosse” references match. Lastly, although in 1534 the lawyer Jean Le Pelletier (Aj&B) was judged guilty of heresy and sentenced to perpetual banishment for failing to appear in court, he later served—one assumes rehabilitated—as one of Marguerite’s councillors in the ducal exchequer court in 1539 and 1542.66 Marguerite’s attempts to fend off the royal commission and to succor its victims reveal sufficiently that she had not abandoned the evangelicals uncovered at Alençon.67 Such actions conform to the accepted view of

62 Despierres cites archival documents proving Ledevyn was from Alençon, see “L’imprimerie,” 20, n. 1. 63 Guérin, “Poursuites,” 127 and 174; La Ferrière-Percy, Livre de dépenses, 189. 64 Lefranc, Comptes, 77 and 91, and La Ferrière-Percy, Livre de dépenses, 192. 65 Despierres recognized this possible connection based on the similarity of names in the marriage contract, but none of the other connections between the Alençon Forty and Marguerite’s household rolls, see “L’imprimerie,” 29. For François Hérard see Lefranc, Comptes, 92, and La Ferrière-Percy, Livre de dépenses, 184. 66 Lefranc, Comptes, 71 and 89, and La Ferrière-Percy, Livre de dépenses, 173. 67 In his reassessment of the beginnings of reform at Alençon, Bernard Roussel has rightly rejected Oursel, Weiss, and Robert’s avowal that a coherent Protestant “church” was already established there by 1534. By bringing new evidence to the fore, the revised claim here is that a coherent evangelical network, certainly no Protestant church, existed there and that Marguerite fostered and succored its persecuted members. See Bernard Roussel, “Marguerite de Navarre: Les débuts de la Réforme et les troubles d’Alençon, 1530–1534,” 90–92, 94–95 and n. 5.

404

chapter nine

her as a large-hearted protectress of religious non-conformists. With respect to her leadership of a broad evangelical movement, however, the essential question is whether she was responsible for cultivating the religious ferment there. To see the common bonds in the tangle of names shared among the forty suspects and the members of her court, we need to take a running start by reviewing the evidence of evangelical activity in the years leading up to the act of iconoclasm and trial. Before 1533, although she was largely non-resident, she had begun making Alençon a center of evangelical renewal through her servants. As at Meaux, her efforts began with preaching. During the fervor of the Meaux experiment in 1524, Marguerite sent Michel d’Arande and Jean Du Mesnil, who came from a prominent local family whose members staffed her ducal administration, to preach in the duchy.68 By 1526, after Pierre Caroli’s preaching and teaching in Meaux and Paris led to high-profile conflicts with the Faculty of Theology, he became active in the diocese as revealed by the bishop of Sées’ interest in the faculty’s conclusions against him.69 Sometime between then and July 1530, Marguerite made Caroli curate of Alençon.70 He was most likely a resident priest, for in January 1531, when reforming the local hospital, Marguerite named “nostre amé et féal conseiller et aumosnier Me. Pierre Caroli, docteur en théologie, curé de nostre ville d’Alençon,” as one of three local officials responsible for conducting weekly inspections.71 So too, about this time his preaching in Alençon aroused the suspicions of conservatives, resulting in charges being made against him but no formal trial. When reviewing the long-standing charges against Caroli in 1534, not even the bloody second royal commission felt comfortable in prosecuting him. Instead, it remanded the case of Marguerite’s almoner to the king.72 Meanwhile, in 1529 she helped to reconstitute at Alençon the second arm of the evangelical program conceived at Meaux: printing. With 68 For his preaching see chapter 7, note 29 and note 73 below for the Du Mesnil family. 69 Farge, Biographical Register, no. 78, 68. 70 Despierres cites a notarial act in which Caroli gave the vicariate of the chapel of Saint-Léonard Alençon to Giles Sereze and Jehan Le Richomme on 5 July 1530, “L’imprimerie,” 29–30. 71 La Ferrière-Percy, Livre de dépenses, 154. 72 The 1534 royal commission “ont deliberé et conclu entre eulx qu’il sera bon et expedient de advertir le roy des cas dont maistre Pierre Caroli est chargé depuis troys ou quatre ans en ça, pour en estre par luy ordonné ce qu’il luy plaira.” Guérin, “Poursuites,” 128.

legitimating the evangelical movement, –

405

the help of her servants, Simon Du Bois moved his press to her ducal seat from Paris in the wake of Berquin’s execution. The notarial acts concerning Du Bois’s activities at Alençon uncovered by Despierres, reveal the earliest evidence about the membership of the nascent evangelical network there, connecting several major figures who would subsequently be targeted by heresy investigations in Rouen, Alençon, and Paris. Soon after his arrival in October 1529, Du Bois hired the servant of the afore-mentioned heretical preacher, Étienne Lecourt, as an apprentice.73 Three months later, in dire financial straits, Du Bois received a large, short-term loan from one of Marguerite’s officers in the duchy, Guillaume Le Coustellier.74 Shortly thereafter, in April 1530, when Le Coustellier was threatening to sue Du Bois for non-payment, the noblewoman Jeanne d’Avoise paid his debt.75 Having stabilized his financial position by December 1531, he rented a house on the town square from Marguerite’s captain of the château of Alençon, Jacques Piloys, sieur de Montigny.76 The establishment of Du Bois’s press at Alençon was, judging by the results, a significant and calculated effort to promote the evangelical cause through print. While at Alençon, Du Bois produced, as careful bibliographic research has shown, the most extensive and stridently evangelical catalogue of books—most of them anonymous—to issue from any French press during those years. It was a daring clandestine operation to which Marguerite must have been fully committed. She even wittingly linked herself to it—foolishly so

73

Despierres “L’imprimerie,” 29–30. One of the witnesses, Pierre Du Mesnil, sieur Du Pey, was probably a relation of the priest Jean who had preached in 1524 or one of the other three Du Mesnils employed by Marguerite (two as councillors) at Alençon between 1512 and 1548. See Lefranc, Comptes, 29, 37, 46, 59, 64, 71, and 82, La Ferrière-Percy, Livre de dépenses, 181. 74 109 l.t., 9 sols, 19 January 1530, Despierres, “L’imprimerie,” 30. For another sign of his financial difficulties at the time, see note 97 below. 75 Despierres, “L’imprimerie,” 30. A witnesses to this act, Martin “Hourdebourg,” would seem to be related to Jacques “Haurdebourg,” one of the principal heresy suspects who was banished in absentia by the 1534 commission. See Guérin, “Poursuites,” 124 and 174. Despite the apparent tension between Du Bois and Le Coustellier, both would remain her trusted servants. Du Bois would go on to publish the first editions of her poetry. In 1542, Marguerite entrusted Le Coustellier with the distribution of a large sum for purposes she did not want revealed: “le 4 janvier 1541 [1542 n. s.] nous trouvons un mandement de 533 livres 15 sols tournois en faveur de Guillaume le Coustellier, greffier du conseil d’Alençon, ‘pour estre par luy employez suivant l’intention de la royne qu’elle lui a faict entendre, dont elle ne veult autre declaration estre faicte.’ ” La Ferrière-Percy, Livre de dépenses, 26–27, n. 3. 76 La Ferrière-Percy, Livre de dépenses, 26–27, n. 3. See also Lefranc, Comptes, 70 and 89, La Ferrière-Percy, Livre de dépenses, 108.

406

chapter nine

should contemporary censors have detected the connection as modern scholars have—by having Du Bois publish with place and printer clearly indicated the first editions of her religious poetry: the 1531 Miroir de l’âme pécheresse and 1533 Dialogue en forme de vision nocturne.77 A third plank in her program of evangelical renewal in the duchy was the reform of charity. As touched on above, in 1528 she had selected Étienne Lecourt as administrator of the Hôtel-Dieu of Mortaigne, instructing him to pass on the office in September 1530, when he was likely under investigation for heresy.78 In her January 1531 reform of the Hôtel-Dieu of Alençon, she designated in addition to Caroli, two other trusted officials, her master of requests at Alençon and her lieutenant general of the baillage, to form a new bureau in charge of administering the funds.79 Marguerite reauthorized the established practice that two “élus,” widows or women of mature years, would be chosen and paid to distribute the foundation’s funds, and designated the chaplain of Saint-Jean, presumably Jean Chassevent (S), to administer the sacraments to the sick. For the poor, she established a new fund, “la bourse des pauvres,” over which the two female élus and the curate of Alençon, Caroli, would have charge. The bureau was further commissioned to select a rota of citizens to conduct twice-weekly solicitations of voluntary alms for the poor and designate an ample number of lay deacons (doyens) to identify the truly indigent. Wandering and able-bodied beggars were to be excluded from the charity rolls and forced to leave town. As seen in her further reforms of the hôtel-dieu in 1536 and 1545, the point of this new charity regime was to end the practice of private alms-giving and channel this impulse into a public, rationalized welfare system that would exclude the undeserving.80 There is much to say about Marguerite’s views of social order as revealed in these documents. Most importantly for our purposes, we see that she aimed to draw all members of society into a regular program of collec77 The reader is invited to inspect appendix B I to see the full range of Du Bois evangelical imprints from 1529 to 1534, a few of which do not appear among the full descriptions found in Higman, Piety. See further George Clutton, “Simon Du Bois of Paris and Alençon,” Gutenberg-Jahrbuch (1937), 124–130; Annie Tricard, “La propagande évangélique en France: L’imprimeur Simon Du Bois (1525–1534),” in Aspects de la propagande religieuse, G. Berthoud et al., THR 28 (Geneva: Droz, 1957), 1–37; Francis M. Higman, “Simon Du Bois à Paris en 1534?” BHR 42 (1980), 413–419; and the articles by James P. Carley in note 171. 78 Oursel, Notes, 31–32. 79 La Ferrière-Percy, Livre de dépenses, 153–157 and 206–209. 80 For the 1536 revisions, see La Ferrière-Percy, Livre de dépenses, 157–159.

legitimating the evangelical movement, –

407

tive charity whose success would depend on the work and leadership of elite women. Marguerite instructed the alms collectors to solicit first from women of the highest ranks and then, with them having set the example, to work their way down the social ladder. Thus, well before the heresy indictments at Alençon in 1533, Simon Du Bois, Pierre Caroli, Jeanne d’Avoise, Étienne Lecourt, and a variety of Marguerite’s ducal officers and their wives as well as their subordinates were linked together through their cooperation in Marguerite’s several evangelical projects in the region. Remarkably, the royal judges who descended on Alençon in August 1534 identified coteries of heretics precisely among the groups involved in Marguerite’s reform programs. Moreover, although the trial transcripts, including the testimony of hostile witnesses and the interrogation of the defendants that would tell a full tale may have disappeared, the judges’ very procedures, as revealed in the surviving trial summary, suggest that the cases of these forty were linked.81 During the first three days of the second commission’s work, the judges conducted initial hearings, citing by turns several groups of defendants. These groups included a variety of town notables—lawyers, Marguerite’s ducal officials, and prominent merchants—as well as five priests active at Alençon and Condé-sur-Sarthe, eleven laypersons from the hamlet of Courteilles near Alençon, where conventicles of gens suspectz had gathered to hear “illicit preaching,” as well as the administrators of the Hôtel-Dieu of Alençon. The sequence itself of the judges’ proceedings reveals much about the interconnections of the evangelical network at Alençon. On the first day of hearings, they began by dealing with the cases of the principal suspects who had already been identified and jailed or indicted by the first commission, including the two imprisoned iconoclasts Commyn and Laignel and their associate Paul Mabon, who was at large, as well as a group of five others in jail: three from the hamlet of Courteilles—Jean Ruel (†), a lawyer, Jehan Chastellais (Wh), and Michel Petit (Wh)—as well as two from Alençon—Nicolas Briolay (†), bourgeois, and Bertaud

81 As Robert and Despierres have shown from records dating from the early 1560s through the seventeenth century, many descendants of the Alençon Forty went on to become pillars of a robust Reformed church at Alençon. Of course, such evidence cannot be used to argue for the existence of such a religious community in the early 1530s, but it does fit with the evidence and picture of dissent being drawn here. See Despierres, “L’imprimerie,” 21–26, and Robert, “Débuts,” passim.

408

chapter nine

Prével (A).82 The judges strictly charged the town jailer not to allow them to communicate with each other or with people from the outside. Presumably, they knew each other and their cases were connected since the judges did not want them coordinating their defenses. Next, the judges turned to two imprisoned priests, who evidently had been fingered as spiritual leaders among the heretics: Paul Graindorge (S) of Alençon, who was thereby a subordinate of Pierre Caroli, and Guillaume Rolland (Aj&R) of Condé-sur-Sarthe, the parish formerly held by Étienne Lecourt. On the second day of hearings, the prosecutor of the episcopal court of Sées joined ranks with the royal (secular) prosecutor, and by turns they charged several additional groups of suspects. Again, the cases of the individuals in each batch of defendants seem to have been linked. First came the prosecutors’ attack on the notables. In the case of Geoffroy Crochard (I), a lawyer in the ducal court, the royal commissioners sought further testimony from five townsmen, who appear to have been from the same class of ducal functionaries, some of whom were connected to Marguerite.83 While no record of the outcome of his case survives, the verdicts handed down against the group of five notables next charged by the ecclesiastical prosecutor of Sées, four of whom were in flight, struck at heart of the evangelical network at Alençon:

82 Petit and Prével were also sentenced to witness the burning of the fifth man to be executed, Guillaume Le Brun (†), who was brought from prison in Sées to Alençon for final sentencing late in the trial (11 September). Having already been incarcerated by authorities at Sées, Jean Le Brun was likely associated with the nexus of “gens suspectz” from Alençon and Courteilles. He is also another heretic possibly with ties to Marguerite’s court. Starting at least as early as 1512, a certain Guillaume Le Brun was Marguerite’s valet de garde-robe. This Le Brun, like Jean, must have been from the duchy given the early date of his start of service, which was well before she had come to enjoy other territories beyond Alençon gifted to her by Francis I in the late 1510s. Lefranc, Comptes, 26, 34, 48, and 60. A Guillaume “Le Brong,” an alternative spelling for Le Brun, who would seem to be the same man or a relation, is noted on her rolls as clerc d’office in 1529 and 1539, ibid., 86 and 92, and again as secrétaire and clerc d’office in 1543 and 1548, La Ferrière-Percy, Livre de dépenses, 176 and 186. 83 Three of the witnesses called to give testimony in his case were from families that served Marguerite and her mother, Louise of Savoy. Antoine and Loys Barbier were probably related to the Nicolle and Claude, who served Louise as secretary and chaplain respectively between 1512 and 1522, as well as Jacques who served Marguerite as secretary from 1517 to 1524 and Pierre Barbier, who participated in a third reform of the Hôtel-Dieu of Alençon as its financial receiver. A third witness, Sebastien Farcy, was probably related to Guillaume, who served Marguerite in 1549 as a “conseiller de l’échiquier d’Alençon” along with two other former Alençon Forty suspects, Jean Le Pelletier and Bernard Bahuet. See Guérin, “Poursuites,” 124; Lefranc, Comptes, 3, 15, 33, and 74; and La Ferrière-Percy, Livre de dépenses, 209 and 173.

legitimating the evangelical movement, –

409

Jean Le Pelletier (Aj&B), Jean Boullemer (Aj&†), Jacques Haudebourg (Aj&B), François Chappellain (Aj&NR), and Julien de Bernay (Aj&†). These five men form a sort of hub for our analysis, just as they did for the judges’ inquest. They were the first major group pursued by the court after those who had already been jailed by the first commission. Moreover, as a group they received some of the harshest punishments among the ajournés who failed to appear. Collectively, these five also had ties with just about all the other batches of suspects indicted by the commission and, furthermore, like many of them, to Marguerite. By concentrating on this nexus of five notables, we are better able to see the interconnections among the Alençon Forty. Among this nodal five were two men of the courts. Le Pelletier, who later appeared on Marguerite’s rolls, was a lawyer, like the aforementioned Ruel and Crochard, who were already in jail. The second, Julien de Bernard, who resided at Radon, was a former sergent of the ducal court. He was also the brother-in-law of Ruel. Despite the death sentence handed down against Bernard in absentia, he was, like Le Pelletier, later rehabilitated, for he signed an act in 1545 as guardian of the daughters of his widowed sister, Marie de Bernay (Aj&NR), wife of Ruel.84 As we will see below in the lineup of defendants there were many more members of the interconnected circles of lawyers, ducal officials, and notables. As for centers of heresy, among the nodal five, François Chappellain was from the village of Courteilles, like three men already imprisoned, Ruel, Chatellais, and Petit. So too were the next seven people indicted by the prosecutor of Sées immediately after our nodal group of five: first, two men in flight deemed worthy of the stake, Isaac Legoux (Aj&†) and Noël de Meaux (Aj&†), and then a group of female relations of the men from Courteilles who had already been indicted, including Mathurine Clouet (Aj&M), wife of Macé Petit; Georgine Legoux (Aj&M), wife of the Isaac Legoux; the afore-mentioned Marie de Bernay, wife of Jean Ruel; as well as the unnamed wife of Vincent Chappellain (Aj&M) and another man, Guillaume Lyon (Aj&NR). Three of the five (the verdicts of the other two are not recorded) were acquitted and cautioned not to leave town.

84 Despierres, “L’imprimerie,” 29. A Georges de Bernay, likely a relative, had been employed as a valet trenchant by Marguerite’s mother in 1522. Lefranc, Comptes, 11.

410

chapter nine

Among our nodal five, the last two, Le Pelletier and Boullemer, likely had connections to the final major batch of suspects to be indicted by the second commission, a group which appears to have been the staff of the hôtel-dieu, including Marguerite Edme (Aj&B), Robert Huron (Aj&NR), Michelle Gruelle (Aj&M), Jean Chassevent (S), and Jean Duval (Aj&M). Chassevent was the chaplain of the hôtel-dieu and the others indicted with him were, with little doubt, associated with that institution. Jean Duval, “patricien et advocat” was “administrateur de la chappelle Sainct-Loys d’Alençon,” which formed part of the system of charity in the city.85 Though the judges acquitted him, they included his testimony in the dossier against Jean Chassevent when remanding the priest’s case to the court of the bishop of Sées. The evidence connecting Edme, Huron, and Gruelle to the hôteldieu is circumstantial, but compelling. When reforming that institution in 1545, Marguerite called on the help of a group of local notables, many of whom had themselves been indicted or had relatives who had been in 1534. In the 1545 reform act, a document that was drawn up by Paul Mabon, Jean Le Pelletier was tasked with inventorying the foundation’s goods. Among those who swore to uphold the reforms were Martin “Heron” and Robert Boullemer, deacons (doyens) of the foundation, who would seem to be close relations of Robert Huron (Heron), and Jean Boullemer, who had been indicted with the Hôtel’s chaplain, Chassevent, in 1534. Marguerite Edme, whom the queen later succored, and Michelle Gruelle were also, therefore, just as the three other men with whom they were indicted, probably associated with the hôtel-dieu, perhaps serving as its two female élus. Two further indices support the claim. In the 1545 reform, Marguerite specifically charged the priest, Antoine “Gruel,” presumably a relation of Michelle, with administering the yearly accounts of the hôtel-dieu. Moreover, during the 1534 trials Michelle Gruelle’s husband, Jean Juliotte (Aj&NR), was cited before the second royal commission together with Simon Bahuet

85 Robert, “Débuts,” 379 identifies the chapel of Saint-Loys specifically with the Hôtel-Dieu of Alençon. Sensibly, he also warns that two people should not be assumed to be related simply because they share the same last name, noting that there were over fourteen branches of the Duval family in Alençon during the seventeenth century. The point is well taken. When the two namesakes share the same place of origin, social profile, and occupation, however, the connection would seem more than a coincidence. A Pierre Du Val served Marguerite in 1529 as aide d’écurie and 1539 as maréchal, two bureaucratic posts befitting a man of a patrician background, legal training, or experience administrating an institution. See Lefranc, Comptes, 86 and 93.

legitimating the evangelical movement, –

411

(Aj&NR) and his son Bertrand (Aj&NR), a merchant who served as Marguerite’s huissier of the exchequer from 1529–1549 and also signed the hôtel-dieu reform act of 1545 in his capacity as one of the leading bourgeois of the town.86 Notarial records reveal further probable connections between the Alençon Forty and the evangelical network Marguerite protected in her duchy. On 11 July 1532, that is, one year before the heresy proceedings began at Alençon, a Léonard Le Pelletier, likely a relation of the aforementioned Jean Le Pelletier, signed a pledge in favor of Étienne Lecourt at the ducal court of Alençon. Thus we find a member of the Le Pelletier family helping Lecourt well after the priest had been indicted by the archbishop of Rouen for heresy, a telling fact that implies a close connection between Lecourt and the evangelicals of Alençon and strengthens the case for his spiritual leadership of them, which some scholars have assumed, but never be able to prove. In another notarial act from 1530, one finds that a certain Martin “Houdebourg,” who would seem to be related to Jacques Haudebourg, one of the nodal five noted above, witnessed Jeanne d’Avoise’s payment of Simon Du Bois’s loan. This last trace brings us back yet again to the case of the noblewoman Jeanne d’Avoise, who would seem to have been a principal figure within the Alençon evangelical community. Based on the testimony of two clerics from Radon, a hamlet near to her château, the judges brought an indictment against her. Although they pursued her case with especial vigor (in five different sessions, more times than for any other defendant), they decided in the end to remand her case, like that of Marguerite’s almoner Caroli, to the king. They were the only two defendants to receive such kid-glove handling by the sentencing commission. Moreover, there are other circumstantial indications of d’Avoise’s connections to the queen, beyond her known support of Du Bois and the likelihood that her servant de La Fosse’s relative was in Marguerite’s court. Jeanne d’Avoise would seem to have been connected by marriage to the family of Jean de La Motte, a.k.a. Mothe or Moussy, Marguerite’s “maître d’hostel ordinaire” in Alençon since Avoise’s nephew had married one Marguerite de La Motte-Fouquet in 1526. Jean de La Motte, Marguerite’s trusted officer, played a substantial role as the chief protector of the local evangelicals during the 1534

86

A Guillaume Bahuet also served Marguerite as fourrier from 1539–1549.

412

chapter nine

hearings. He secured the release of a man indicted at the same time as d’Avoise, Jean Henault (Aj&M). This Henault was also well cared for by yet another of Marguerite’s officers. Unlike any of the other prisoners, who were all incarcerated in the town conciergerie, he was held in Marguerite’s ducal château, where he would have been under the charge of her capitaine, Jacques Piloys, sieur de Montigny, who, as noted above along with d’Avoise, had previously helped Simon Du Bois to establish himself at Alençon. Jean de La Motte also attempted what appears to have been the one bit of evangelical retaliation against the conservatives in this whole affair. Bringing the only charge initiated by someone other than the royal commissioners or the prosecutor of the bishop of Sées, he accused brother Germain (I), a Franciscan of Sées, of unspecified crimes when preaching. The court challenged La Motte to produce his witnesses, including Mathurin Quillet, one of Caroli’s vicars in Alençon, and another local priest, but no further developments in the case are recorded in the trial records. It is speculation, but worth an odds-on bet that brother Germain had stirred up trouble for evangelicals at Alençon, as his confreres had done at Meaux in the 1520s, and that La Motte was attempting to silence him. If he was not among the opponents of the evangelicals, then why was his case the only one of the five clerics indicted not to be vigorously pursued? Why was it one of Marguerite’s loyal officers who brought the charge against him and not the royal prosecutor or the prosecutor of the bishop of Sées? The latter, in his capacity as the representative of the ecclesiastical justice, demonstrated a particular interest in silencing heretical clerics and would-be ministers. In addition to being the lead prosecutor against the suspects from Courteilles, who had attended illicit preaching services, and directing the cases of two priests back to his bishop’s court for prosecution, the prosecutor of Sées had also charged the Augustinian, René Du Four (Aj&R), with preaching heresy at Alençon.87 Dealing with heretical clerics was his specialty, and he evidently did not consider brother Germain a threat. Just as one could wish for clearer information about the profile and internal structure of the evangelical network at Alençon, so too one would like to know its members’ exact activities and doctrines. The

87 Though a reward was issued for his capture, Du Four appears to have escaped final sentencing until 1540, when he was banished from the realm. See Sauzet, Mendiants et Réformes, 94.

legitimating the evangelical movement, –

413

crime committed by the two iconoclasts, Commyn and Laignel, and those imputed to the other defendants in the judges’ sentences, nevertheless, demonstrate broad similarities to the message evangelical clerics in Marguerite’s network, including Étienne Lecourt, had been preaching. Though the judges’ verdicts are formulaic, the crimes specified and punishments handed down do differ from case to case, presumably in accord with the severity of each defendant’s heresy. Commyn and Laignel had struck symbolically and with calculated precision at the cult of the saints and the Mass. The judges ordered a correspondingly brutal punishment for their deeds against “the honor of God, the Virgin, and saints, and scandalous contempt of the holy mother church.” The judges oddly left out specific mention of the iconoclasts’ attack on the sacrament of the altar, that is, by committing their act on the Feast of Corpus Christi. But when sentencing ten of the twelve other defendants whose verdicts survive, however, the judges did include this crime in the list of heresies for which they were guilty. In all, the judges’ sentences also cite, in varying admixtures, four areas of doctrinal deviance: attacks on the Virgin and saints, the sacrament of the altar, the universality of the church, and ecclesiastical traditions; as well as four types of heretical actions: iconoclasm, uttering blasphemy, illicit preaching, and attending private religious conventicles. The doctrines and deeds for which Lecourt was condemned were homologous.88 The first thing to note is that his sermons were dissident and provocative, purposefully so. As Gérard Roussel had done at Meaux in the early 1520s, he often intoned the Lord’s Prayer instead of the customary Ave Maria at the start of his sermons, a gesture that shocked traditionalists and signaled to his auditors that an unwonted message was to come. When preaching, he was combative. Having been publically denounced for his views by conservative priests and inquisitors, he defended his doctrines and condemned his rivals: “. . . male praedicavit Inquisitor asserens contrarium.”89 Rebuffing their assertions that he was a heretic, he preached that it was just as bad to boast of being a Jacobite (Dominican) or follower of Magister Jean Le Maigre or any other

88 Five sets of Lecourt’s erroneous doctrines, totaling 69 propositions, were condemned by the Faculty of Theology of Paris. They are cited hereafter by set (imputed A–E) and ordinal number, e.g. A 4, “Homo nihil potest addere ad salutem,” from d’Argentré, Collectio judiciorum 2, pt. 1, 93–98. 89 In four propositions he is cited as condemning his clerical opponents, ibid., A 8, A 13, A 21, and A 22.

414

chapter nine

professor of Theology as to be accused of being a Lutheran.90 Lecourt, in short, waged a pulpit-war to champion the evangelical cause as plain and bold as even a Guillaume Farel could have wished. Similarly, religious dissent at Alençon was public. People in the region were ministered to by at least four evangelical clerics, and likely also by Lecourt, certainly by his successor Rolland. Regrettably, aside from Lecourt, we do not know what they preached or taught. Conservative townsmen and the judges, however, plainly thought these clerics and their followers were blasphemers on many of the same counts for which Lecourt was executed. He attacked the cult of the saints and Mary as excessive, derogating from the worship of the one true mediator, Christ.91 All of the fifteen lay people condemned at Alençon were cited for irreverence against the saints, seven specifically for dishonoring the Virgin. Concerning the sacrament of the altar, Lecourt had disparaged the liturgy of the Mass as a human invention, claiming that “only the sacramental words are needed for the consecration of the precious body of Jesus Christ,” a position evocative of Roussel’s avowed view years later.92 Eleven of the fifteen condemned at Alençon were indicted for unspecified heresy against the sacrament of the altar. Eight of the heretics at Alençon were condemned for denigrating the traditions of the church; the cleric of Condé-sur-Sarthe had preached against adoring the cross, fasting, pilgrimages, the lighting of candles, clerical celibacy, and indulgences.93 Of course, such practices were but a laundry-list of ‘abuses’ typically condemned by those who accepted the theological heart of evangelical doctrine: justification by faith alone in the solely salvific sacrifice of the one true mediator.94 In the evidence gathered against him, Lecourt was cited for preaching this central soteriological 90

Ibid., A 2 and A 17. “Non oportet tot quaerere media ad salutem, quoniam unum habemus medium quod est Christus,” ibid., A 23. Based on this idea that Christ alone is the true mediator, he sketched the revisions he felt should ensue in the cult of the saints, D 1, D 3, D 6, D 7, E 6, E 7, and E 8; and of Mary, A 3, A 24, A 25, and B2. 92 “. . . le saint Canon a été fait d’un home mortel, et que ce qui est contenu audit Canon, n’est pas necessaire à la consecration du precieux Corps de J. C. fors les paroles sacramentelles.” Ibid, D 4. Lecourt did have in his possession a French translation of the ten theses upheld by Bertold Haller and Franz Kolb at Berne in 1528, (the fifth set, “E,” in d’Argentré) in which they denied the real presence, e.g., E 4, but Lecourt does not seem to have preached this doctrine. He only attacked the doctrine of the Mass as a good work, cf. C 4 and D 8. Cf. for Roussel’s sacramental theology, the second section of chapter 11. 93 Ibid., A 1, A 20, A 21, A 26, A 29, C1, C3, and D 2, cf. E 9. 94 Ibid., A 2, A 5, A 15, A 23, A 29, B4, B5, B6, C4, and C5. 91

legitimating the evangelical movement, –

415

message almost as often as for asserting what he took to be the main ecclesiological conclusions to be drawn from it: like the heretics at Toulouse, he believed that the papacy was fundamentally corrupt and the church militant was not the true church.95 Four at Alençon were condemned similarly, albeit in more general terms, for impugning “l’estat universel de nostre mere saincte eglise de la religion catholicque.” Lecourt drew further ecclesiological conclusions: the people should have the Bible, hitherto hidden by the clergy in Latin, in the vernacular so that they could have direct understanding of its message.96 The first task that Lecourt’s former servant would have put his hand to in the autumn of 1529 upon becoming Simon Du Bois’s apprentice was the reprinting of Lefèvre’s translation of the New Testament, whose title page and very publication announced much the same sentiment about the need for the preaching and teaching of the gospel in the vernacular as did Lecourt in his sermons.97 As for the effect of putting the Scripture into the hands of the laity, Lecourt even predicted that: women will perform the offices of bishops and bishops those of women. For women will preach the Holy Scriptures and bishops will embroider in their rooms with the young ladies.98

95 Ibid., on the pope, A 9, A 11, A 12, A 16, A 28, B 13, B 14, B 15, and on the nature of the true church, A 7, A 8, B 1, B 2, and B 3. 96 Ibid., D 5 and D 9. 97 “Jesuchrist dit en sainct Marc chaptire xvi. Allez par tout le monde et preschez L’evangile a toute creature. Qui croira & sera baptise il sera sauvé: qui ne croira point il sera condemné. Au mois de Novembre 1529.” Epigraph on title page of Les choses contenues en ce present livre . . . [Nouveau Testament] ([Alençon: Simon Du Bois], November 1529). Higman, Piety, B 160. As for Du Bois’ printing operation, good help must have been hard to find. His 1529 edition of the New Testament, which was finished the month after he hired Lecourt’s servant, betrays the involvement of rookie hands. It was poorly produced. A large portion of the book of Acts was left out during composition and had to be added at the end of the book: “Lecteur Chrestien, ce que ensuyt ceste pagelle a este laisse aux actes des apostres, ou huytiesme chapitre, soubz la lettre de C, environ le mylieu de la page. Ce qui a este signe audict lieu de ce charactere.*” (hh6), New York Public Library *KP 1529 (Bible. N.T. French. 1529). It would have cost much time, paper, and money to have reset and reprinted the defective quires, and, as we have seen above, Du Bois was in deep debt at that early stage of his Alençon career. 98 “La sainte Ecriture a été longtemps cache sous le latin; mais maintenant Dieu a voulu que elle soit mise en françois, et doresnavant les homes et femmes l’entendront, et les femmes feront les offices des Evêques, et les Evêques les offices des femmes. Car elles prêcheront la sainte Ecriture, et les Evêques broderont en chambre avecques les damoiselles.” D’Argentré, Collectio judiciorum 2, pt. 1, 97, D 9.

416

chapter nine

What exactly he meant by this prediction of role-reversal is not clear, but Lecourt was in effect restating what Lefèvre, Caroli, and other evangelicals had been claiming and promoting since the early 1520s, namely that when guided by the Holy Spirit, women have the ability to understand and interpret Scripture better than most bishops or doctors of the church.99 Just so, women had figured prominently in the group of heretics at Courteilles, which had been meeting privately to hear illicit preaching and, presumably, interpret the Scriptures. The prominence of women in the this conventicle and Jeanne d’Avoise’s status-based precedence in the Alençon evangelical community, paralleled their designated roles in Marguerite’s program of poor relief, which, if not the office of bishops, was functionally that of the ministerial office Calvin would institutionalize at Geneva, the diaconate. Only the iconoclasm of the two laymen at Alençon finds no justification in Lecourt’s preaching. He did have among his papers a translation of Berthold Haller and Franz Kolb’s articles for the 1528 Bern disputation, in which they avowed in the eighth proposition that “We must destroy [images]!”100 Yet, in the long list of complaints leveled against him by ecclesiastical investigators Lecourt was never accused of preaching this to his parishioners or of leading them on any image-smashing rampage. Commyn and Laignel’s act may have been inspired by the verbal iconoclasm of preachers like Lecourt, but if the articles imputed to him are any measure, then these laymen and their accomplices would seem to have acted independently and beyond what their preachers had instructed them to do, much as the carder Pierre Le Clerc had done at Meaux and Metz in the wake of his tutelage under Roussel in 1525. In sum, the deeds and fate of the evangelicals indicted at Toulouse and Alençon during the early 1530s, as well as Marguerite’s extensive efforts to save them and the Vaudois of Aix, resonated with each other. These episodes pitted her and her allies at court in a deepening struggle with conservatives and reinforced her public reputation as the protector of heretics just as her campaign to legitimate the evangelical movement through preaching in Paris and diplomacy abroad began to unfold in 1533.

99 100

Imbart, Origines 3, 179. “. . . on doit les [images] abolir,” d’Argentré, Collectio judiciorum 2, pt. 1, 98, “E 8.”

legitimating the evangelical movement, –

417

Evangelical Buildup and Breakdown in Paris, 1533–1535 Marguerite and her network’s attempts to legitimate the evangelical cause at Paris from the beginning of Roussel’s Lenten sermons in 1533 through the October 1534 Placards and their aftermath captured the imaginations of Parisians and people throughout France and abroad. The ‘evangelical moment’ during these two years in Paris was one of the most important not just in the history of the Reformation in France, but also in its future course in the rest of Europe. As Denis Crouzet has shown, 1533 was an annus mirabilis, the 1500th anniversary year of the death of Christ, a moment when religious expectations ran especially high.101 Paris, moreover, was one of the most important intellectual crossroads of Europe, where students and masters as well as artisans and merchants brought together all the major competing religious currents then flowing in Europe: conservative, Erasmian, evangelical from its Lutheran to its Zwinglian variants, and even radical. In retrospect, the significance of the events of those years in Paris becomes vividly apparent when we recognize that future ‘giants’ of the Reformation age were being formed by their very experience as participants in these religious battles. In late 1532, Rabelais’s Pantagruel had just burst into Paris for his education; three years later under the influence of events there, his author would render his father Gargantua more evangelical still. Then and there, Ignatius of Loyola was gathering his first companions. Contrary to what one might expect of the future ‘foot-soldiers’ of the CounterReformation, Ignatius and his companions refused to join conservatives in fighting the religious battles raging around the university walls behind which they were taking their spiritual retreats. By consciously refraining from confessional conflict in the early stages of preparing themselves to serve the church, they seem, remarkably, to have better equipped themselves later to enter the fray, though it was never their primary mission.102 Then and there, the young John Calvin participated

101 See Denis Crouzet, “Circa 1533: Anxieties, Desires, and Dreams,” Journal of Early Modern History 5 (2001), 24–61, esp. 41 ff. Based on a sensitive reading of the evangelical message of Rabelais’s 1532 Pantagruel and works by other evangelicals in those years, he posits that many believed that time was accelerating and a new “messianic” era was about to begin, an expectation which “differentiated [French] evangelicals from Lutherans,” 60–61. 102 See John O’Malley’s clear and nuanced argument that Loyola and his followers were not primarily focused on engaging in the Reformation conflict during the early

418

chapter nine

as an insider in the evangelical ferment during the long summer of 1533. He also encountered members of the sect of Spiritual Libertines, who would become the target of his first and many subsequent writings as a reformer; helped to formulate Cop’s All Saints’ Day oration; and, after being forced to flee because of his involvement, looked back intently from afar as his brethren were burned in the aftermath of the October 1534 Placards. These terrible experiences profoundly shaped his first steps as a reformer, animating his many attacks on both the radicals as well as, more importantly, on the leaders of the evangelical movement, whom he would reject as half-hearted “Nicodemites.”103 And although Calvin learned to dislike the prose giant of his age, Rabelais, then and there, Clement Marot, the one poetic giant of the age writing in French whom Calvin would later embrace, joined Master Alcofribas (Rabelais) in coordinated action against the conservatives.104 It was the moment when Marot shed his adolescent shyness and began to publish his maturing evangelical voice in an accelerating spate of books, one of whose first fruits was his French translations of David’s Psalms, which, in large part mediated by Calvin’s Geneva, would go on to have such a profound impact not just in French-speaking lands, but by way of translation, in English and German-speaking ones as well. These giants in the making, however, were in 1533 to 1534 but minor figures in the rival circles gathered around the chief evangelical protagonists, Marguerite, Gerard Roussel, and Jean and Guillaume Du Bellay, and their conservative antagonists, Noël Beda, syndic of the Faculty of Theology, Pierre Lizet, president of the parlement, and Antoine Duprat, chancellor of the royal court.105 For many participants, great and small,

years of their formation at Paris, but nevertheless shaped by it, in The First Jesuits (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), 16–17, 28–32. They were, however, certainly present in the thick of the conflict. One of Loyola’s preferred professors of Theology from 1533 to 1535, Pierre de Cornibus, a conservative, was, as we shall see below, in the forefront of the battle against the evangelicals. Loyola’s letters from his Paris years and subsequent Jesuit histories demonstrate that the founder of the order quite consciously avoided entering into the religious disputes around him, except for conducting many people to absolve themselves before the inquisitor following the Placards. That was also the period the inquisitor was approving his Spiritual Exercises (March 1535). See Cándido de Dalmases, Ignatius of Loyola, Founder of the Jesuits: His Life and Work, trans. Jerome Aixalá (St. Louis: Institute of Jesuit Sources, 1985), 106–125, esp. 122–125. 103 See the final section of chapter 11. 104 See note 130. 105 Johann Sturm’s report from Paris to Martin Bucer, 23 August 1533, summarizes the battle lines, Herminjard 3, no. 422, 73.

legitimating the evangelical movement, –

419

those tumultuous years would remain a point of reference, a period, they thought in retrospect, when the course of events that would eventually lead to the Wars of Religion might have been decided otherwise.106 As we shall see below, even as the events provoked by Marguerite and her network in the capital were transpiring, contemporaries saw them as momentous, as barometers of the evangelical movement’s fortunes. Advances and setbacks in Paris signaled to brethren across France whether or not to agitate to further the cause. On the international front, Marguerite and her associates, most importantly Jean Du Bellay, bishop of Paris, and Guillaume Du Bellay, architect of France’s diplomacy with Protestants in the Empire, by turns heralded successes, such as Roussel’s preaching in Paris, or desperately tried to explain away reversals, such as the post-Placards persecution, in order to reassure German Protestants that Francis I was serious about forming a military alliance with them based upon a negotiated religious concord. These episodes reveal that Marguerite and her network’s efforts were multilayered, aiming for short-term victories as well as long-term gains in promoting evangelical renewal. Given the strength of the forces ranged against them, the boldness of the evangelical leaders’ efforts provides yet further proof of their serious commitment to promoting what was, as outsiders realized, a minority and severely menaced religious cause. The Du Bellay brothers were able to spend such coin of the realm to good account abroad. For a brief while, it provided enough foreign credit for them to convince German evangelicals and, thereby, Francis I to pursue a religious concord and military alliance against Charles V. In the middle years of the decade, conservatives like Duprat and Montmorency were thereby sidelined in the struggle for control over Francis’s religious policies. As long as the diplomatic negotiations with Protestants of the Empire remained open, evangelicals at home enjoyed greater liberty to hold and broadcast their common views. Gérard Roussel’s Preaching, 1533 Paris was center stage for a three-act play, which was watched intently by spectators across Europe. Gérard Roussel’s sermons at Paris during

106 See Sturm’s letter to Monluc cited at the end of the conclusion, “Towards the Wars of Religion.”

420

chapter nine

Lent of 1533, Nicolas Cop’s All Saints’ Day oration on 1 November, and the October 1534 posting of placards against the Mass each evoked a devastating backlash from conservatives in the Faculty of Theology, the parlement, and royal government. Marguerite’s decision to have her almoner preach during Lent in 1533 at the Louvre, which required and advertised the blessing of the king, who had just left Paris after celebrating Carnival, was deliberate and provocative. According to our insider source, Johann Sturm, she acted with the full backing of the newly installed bishop of Paris, Jean Du Bellay, and the king.107 Roussel’s daily sermons attracted thousands of eager auditors. Some observers said 5,000, others 10,000, people regularly attended. In addition, two Augustinians, Jean Couraud and François Bertaud, and a priest, Jean Le Rentif (Rétif ), seconded Roussel’s efforts from other pulpits in Paris. At the same time, “scandalous” leaflets (schedulae) were circulating in Paris, which made a mockery of indulgences. They purportedly granted to the holder tens of thousands of years remission of the debt of sin as well as the liberation of one soul from the pains of purgatory for each day of Lent. Late in March, the Faculty of Theology responded to the swelling popularity of these sermons and leaflets, which they believed were connected, by commissioning six preachers to denounce heresy from rival pulpits in strong but generic terms, sparing individuals. They also sent observers to collect evidence against Roussel from his sermons.108 One important witness to these events, who has been almost completely overlooked, provides the fullest surviving description of what Roussel preached during Lent of 1533 and a telling vignette about the violence incited by the Sorbonne’s preachers.109 In late April, 107

Sturm to Bucer, as in note 105. 29 March 1533, Farge, Registre 1, 377A–B, 284–285; 378 C, 286. 109 Florence Volusene to [Cromwell], 25 April [1531] (sic) for [1533], Letters and Papers 5, no. 212, 99–100. Although the content plainly reveals that the letter dates from 1533, the editors of Letters and Papers misdated the mutilated document to 1531 and all modern scholars except for James Farge (see below) have followed them in this error, leading to many false reports of Roussel having preaching in Paris in 1531 and even 1532, for which there is no other evidence. Volusene was reporting in April 1533 during a gap in English ambassadorial presence in France. George Boleyn, brother of Anne, had left by 7 April and would not return to France until after May in the company of the duke of Norfolk, Thomas Howard. See Gary M. Bell, A Handlist of British Diplomatic Representatives, 1509–1688 (London: Offices of the Royal Historical Society, 1990), 76. In this and subsequent quotations from the letter, the editors’ additions to the mutilated text are in square brackets, the present author’s in round ones. 108

legitimating the evangelical movement, –

421

Florence Volusene, an English agent living in France, reported to Thomas Cromwell: Beda (and Pierre) de Cornibus, a Cordelier (Franciscan),110 and other doctors of this town have complained to the King of Peter Gerarde (Gerard Roussel), who preached before the Queen of Navarre this Lent in Paris. Mons. de Lange111 (Guillaume Du Bellay) tells him (Volusene) they have noted three or four articles on which they say he intends to build a house of heresy,112 viz., (1) omnia sunt munda mundis,113 and therefore this delectus ciborum, should be superstitious.114 (2) Sicut ancilla contrectans panem dominae suae immundis manibus, offendit dominam, sic nos Deum quicquid operemur sine fide et conscientia munda.115 (3) Sicut non licet

James K. Farge realized that the date is erroneous, Farge, Orthodoxy, 201 n. 216: “The editor of Letters and Papers, 5:99, [no. 22], is surely mistaken in dating as 1531—rather than 1533—a letter from Florence Volusene to Thomas Cromwell describing the protests of Beda, de Cornibus, and other doctors about Roussel’s Lenten sermons.” Farge’s note concentrates on the important information that after Beda’s exile, the faculty set up a special commission to investigate Roussel’s preaching, not on Volusene’s analysis of the content of Roussel’s sermons. On 12 May, in response to royal command the faculty forwarded a list of Roussel’s errors to court. It is not extant. (See below, note 126). Six months later, on 29 December 1533, the special commission sent a second report to the full faculty, which Farge notes has also been lost, thus making Volusene’s report even more important. Farge, Registre 2, 9. 110 See Farge, Orthodoxy, 50, 158, 198, and 266 for Pierre de Cornibus, O.F.M. He is not mentioned in the faculty’s deliberations about Roussel’s 1533 Lenten sermons. 111 “Mons. de Lange” probably refers to Guillaume Du Bellay, though Volusene may be using the family’s noble title loosely to refer to his brother René, who was a member of the parlement and vicar of his other brother, Jean Du Bellay, bishop of Paris. 112 René-Jacques Lovy, Les origines de la Réforme française: Meaux, 1518–1546 (Paris: Libraire Protestante, 1959), 170, cites the first three articles in translation without noting the source or giving any critical interpretation. 113 A reference to one of the following: Rom. 14:14 “Scio et confido in Domino Iesu quia nihil commune per ipsum nisi ei qui existimat quid commune esse illi commune est.” RSV: “I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for any one who thinks it unclean.” Rom. 14:20 “Noli propter escam destruere opus Dei, omnia quidem munda sunt sed malum est homini qui per offendiculum manducat.” RSV: “Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make others fall by what he eats.” Luke 11:40–41 “Stulti, nonne qui fecit quod de foris est etiam id quod de intus est fecit verumtamen quod superest date elemosynam et ecce omnia munda sunt vobis.” RSV: “You fools! Did not he who made the outside make the inside also? But give for alms those things which are within; and behold, everything is clean for you.” Tit. 1: 15: “Omnia munda mundis coinquinatis autem et infidelibus nihil mundum, sed inquinatae sunt eorum et mens et conscientia.” RSV: “To the pure all things are pure, but to the corrupt and unbelieving nothing is pure; their very minds and consciences are corrupted.” 114 The conclusion attacks compulsory fasting. 115 Works that do not flow from faith and a pure heart are offensive to God.

422

chapter nine uxori mutare, augere vel imminuere vel commentatione aliqua aut glossa in hunc vel illum sensum trahere testamentum mariti,116 sic nec licere Ecclesiae sacras literas sic pro arbitrio suo fingere ac refingere.117 Has not heard the fourth article.

Roussel’s Lenten sermons targeted the observance of fasting,118 but aimed at inculcating deeper principles, namely that only faith makes works acceptable to God and that the church cannot interpret or remake the Scriptures according to its whim, but has to follow God’s instructions in them faithfully. On the latter point, his use of testamentum as a metaphor for Scripture implies that he was also speaking about the sacraments, in particular the Eucharist, which his hearers would soon be taking in fulfillment of their yearly obligation to commune.119 A second account by Basilius Monner, a German studying in Bourges, corroborates Volusene’s. Passing on what must have been a widely disseminated report among French evangelicals, he told his mentor

116

There is no obvious allusion to Scripture or canon law in this clause. When interpreting Scripture, the church should not change anything stated in it or elaborate beyond what is written. This is an appeal to the principle of sola scriptura shared by Lefèvre and his followers with evangelicals in the Empire. 118 Roussel’s thought on fasting was widely shared in the Navarrian Network. In his 1529/1530 Epigrammata (Lyon: Laurent Hyllaire), Nicolas Bourbon had argued in almost exactly the same terms, fol. 34: “Christianus homo liber: Sanis sana quidem sunt omnia, mundaque mundis, / Ergo cibus quorsum quaeso, diesque status?” See chapter 7, note 1 for this edition. In March 1532, Clément Marot and others members of the network were indicted for breaking the Lenten fast one year earlier: “18 Mars 1531 [1532 n.s]. Commission de la cour avec causes à Nicolas Hennequin et S. [Croucon] pour instruire le procès de Laurent et Louis Mégret, Mery Dileau, André le Roy, Clément Marot, André de Villeneuve, et leurs complices chargés d’avoir mangé de la chair pendant le carême, et autres jours prohibés. . . . 30 de ce mois Etienne Clavier secrétaire du Roi et de la Reine de Navarre a cautionné Clément Marot sub pœna commeti et a promis ne sortir de la ville sans avertir ladit cour.” BPF MS 140, fol. 14r cited in Marot, OP 2, C n. 1. 119 In late medieval theology, testamentum is a polyvalent term correlating several ideas, chiefly the notion that Christ’s new law or testament, which is contained in the Scriptures and by which he makes Christians his heirs, was sealed by his death on the cross. Thus, the very words of institution in the Mass embodied that testament and could be connoted by the term. See Heiko A. Oberman, The Harvest of Medieval Theology (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963; 3rd edition, Durham, NC: Labyrinth Press, 1983), 271–275; cf. “Testamentum” in Johannes Altensteig, Lexicon theologicum complectens vocabulorum descriptiones, diffinitiones et interpretationes (Antwerp, 1576), fol. 324. Chapter 11 of this study contains a detailed presentation of Roussel’s later Eucharistic theology, in which he frequently employs testament (French) in this way when discussing the sacrament. In 1533, Roussel’s emphasis on not changing God’s institution or testamentum, literally the Scriptures and figuratively the words of institution, anticipated the simplified liturgy he adopted in celebrating of the Eucharist as bishop of Oloron. 117

legitimating the evangelical movement, –

423

in Erfurt that Roussel had “most humbly taught the gospel purely and sincerely.” The Paris theologians, he related, declared Roussel to be a heretic for teaching that justification came solely from the merits of Christ. From this soteriological foundation, Roussel had gone on to damn the invocation of the saints and proscribe good works.120 Both Volusene’s and Monner’s accounts concur that Roussel had championed the central evangelical doctrines of justification by faith alone and the primacy of Scripture and from them had gone on to attack as unscriptural major elements in the penitential cycle of good works, including fasting and the cult of the saints, denying that they in any way contribute to salvation. Moreover, he had apparently negated aspects of traditional teaching about the Eucharist and the Mass, both their sacramental form of institution as well as their instrumental function in the scheme of salvation. The theologians’ response to Roussel’s attempt to reassess and purify the heart of traditional doctrine and practice was swift and violent. Volusene goes on to relate that one of the faculty’s deputized preachers urged his auditors to take the execution of heretics into their own hands and subsequently went on to incite a mob to attack some of Marguerite’s servants whom they encountered on the street. The text of his letter is mutilated, but the gist of the event is clear: when preaching, this Franciscan used an exemplum of the English commoners’ rising up against a Bohemian heretic, who enjoyed princely patronage (a legend about Jerome of Prague?), in order to justify the people of Paris doing the same against Roussel despite his backing by Marguerite and the king:121 The King has commanded Gerard (Roussel) whenever he preaches before his sister to have two honest men of judgment sworn to recite faithfully what he says, which is but a small punishment. Three or four who preached against him seditiously are commanded to “fre waird” amongst

120 “Theologi Sophistae (quorum magna turba est) ferre non possent . . . privatim ac publice pro concione calumniabantur hominis doctrinam ceu haeresim, ut qui nullam faceret mentionem divae virginis, sanctorum invocationem damnaret ac soli Christo eiusque meritis justificationem tribueret, bona opera prohiberet, atque id genus.” Basilius Mourner to Georg Sturz, 13 June 1533, in Otto Clemen, “Zwei Briefe von Baslius Mourner,” Mitteilungen der Vereinigung für Gothaische Geschichte und Altertumsforschung (1912), 110. 121 See note 109.

424

chapter nine their friends. Amongst them is one Cordelier122 who spoke openly in the pulpit of a great clerk who came from Bohemia to England, and there preached erroneous opinions; the princes and nobles persuaded by his eloquence (did) suffer him, and (sic, read “as did”) the commons for fear of great men, though they grudge(d) not being able to hurt him; “than what followed . . . the corn was marvelous fair on the (stalk) . . . the erroneous preaching of this doc[tor] . . . came and new bread, this bread . . . (which did nothing) but swell men and poison them, . . . and perished many thousands. The(n the people) . . . setting apart all fear, ordinance a(nd will) . . . of princes, went of their own zeal and . . . stoned this doctor to death, . . . and so should ye do, said th[e preacher] . . . with this heretic Gerard, which (who) is none [fit teacher of ] princes and ladies. After this . . . same day as he was going on the str[eet after the] . . . sermon, he perceived certain servants of [the queen] of Navarre, and shewed to them that was (standing by) . . . saying, these be these heretics, and so (the bystanders) . . . falois (sic) hurt five or six of them by his exhort[ation] . . . (the preacher) will be corrected. (Emphasis added)

One would not be mistaken to see this episode as a harbinger of the Holy League’s violent resistance to both Henry III and Henry IV during the Wars of Religion. Although the Sorbonne had instructed its preachers not to target individuals, i.e., Roussel and his royal patrons, a Franciscan preacher had exhorted the people to disobey the king’s will, inciting them in his sermon to lynch Roussel, and then, when out in the street, actually to beat up Marguerite’s ‘heretical’ servants. Other conservative clerics joined the Franciscan in rousing the people to defend the faith. Just such an attack on Roussel likely took place. In July, Urbanus Rhegius shared with friends in Germany reports he had received from France that during Roussel’s Lenten sermons some priests set upon him and nearly succeeded in throwing him down from the pulpit.123 Another

122 Volusene may be referring to Pierre de Cornibus, who is mentioned earlier in the letter. However, the preacher could also have been one of the four exiles, Geoffroy Thomas, O.F.M., who would appear to have been an Englishman, which may explain Volusene’s interest in him and the preacher’s reference to heretics in England. See Farge’s discussion of the bachelors of theology banished for their preaching against the king of Navarre and Roussel on 16 April 1533, Registre 1, 286–287 and 379 n. 18: “Il s’agit des six bacheliers en théologie mentionnés à la séance 377 A et dans la note 1533:11. On connaît l’identité seulement de deux d’entre eux, François Le Picart et le Mathurin Louis Lescudier. Un certain Geoffroy Thomas, Franciscain, dont le nom figure plus tard parmi les exilés, ne fut probablement pas bachelier de la Faculté.” 123 “Dein Luteciae in templo quodam cathedram conscendit Gerardus evangelium annunciaturus et papistis sacrificulisque pene opprimitur.” Urbanus Rhegius to Philipp Melanchthon, from Lüneburg, 8 July 1533, Philipp Melanchthon, Melanchthons Brief-

legitimating the evangelical movement, –

425

witness, Pierre Siderander, a German studying in Paris, reported that François Le Picard (Picartus) along with the other conservative preachers were stirring the people to open rebellion against the king and queen of Navarre, claiming the laity had to act immediately lest deadly heresy take root.124 Johann Sturm reported that these conservative preachers went so far as to denounce in public and by name the king, Marguerite, and Bishop Jean Du Bellay as heretics and Lutherans for protecting such heretics.125 As all four sources report, once Francis I was apprised of the situation by the king and queen of Navarre, he intervened to end the pulpit war that had spilled out onto the streets by placing Roussel under house arrest with Marguerite and banishing the Sorbonne’s seditious preachers as well as their leader, Noël Beda. Since Volusene already knew from his source “Langey,” Guillaume Du Bellay, what the outcome of the affair would be in late April, he must have had advance warning about the king’s plans126 since the official royal order to remand Roussel to house arrest with Marguerite and to banish Noël Beda and three of the Faculty of Theology’s preachers twenty leagues from Paris was not issued until some weeks later on 18 May.127 That Marguerite was responsible for saving Roussel from indictment should hardly surprise. Indeed, sometime during 1533, she wrote twice

wechsel: kritische und kommentierte Gesamtausgabe: Texte, 6 vols. to date, ed. Heinz Scheible (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt, 1991–), vol. 5, no. 1344, 459, ll. 10–12. In other respects, Rhegius’s account of the events surrounding Roussel’s Lenten sermons is quite precise (although his French source gave him an exaggerated figure for the number of Roussel’s auditors, 10,000!); it accords with the other witnesses cited here and may, therefore, be trusted. This event is not to be confused with an attack on Roussel in 1534 reported by Driart. See note 143. 124 Pierre Siderander from Paris to Pierre Bédrot in Strasbourg, 28 May 1533, Schmidt, Gérard Roussel, no. 11, 201–211; 204–204. 125 “Ubi igitur isti Theristae destituti essent omnium auxilio, . . . coeperunt vociferari adversum haereticos et Lutheranos, Regem etiam cum sorore et Episcopum, quod suo silentio comprobarent tales se esse quales defenderent, publice taxaverunt.” Johann Sturm to Martin Bucer, from Paris, 23 August 1533, Herminjard 3, n. 422, 73. 126 Although the faculty had started gathering information on Roussel’s sermons on 29 March, it was only on 16 April, after their preachers had incited the people to rebellion against Roussel, that Duprat and members of the Privy Council demanded that the doctors formulate their charges against him that they took up the task in earnest. Since they only forwarded their report to the court a month later on 12 May, Du Bellay must have had advance warning about its content from someone on the faculty. By the time the faculty finally acted, the royal response had already been determined. See Farge, Registre 1, 377 A–B, 378 C, 379 A, 384 A, 385 A, and 386 A. 127 CAF 2, no. 5849, 421, 18 May 1533. The edict was actually published in Paris on Sunday, 25 May. See Siderander’s letter cited in note 124.

426

chapter nine

to Montmorency about his case and at least once to the king, staking her reputation against the charge that he was a heretic. In the face of the Faculty of Theology’s formal accusations against her preacher, she proclaimed she would never have allowed such poison to infect her court and argued that Roussel “deserves better than the flames.”128 From Roussel’s Sermons to the Placards By remanding Roussel to house arrest with Marguerite and banishing the seditious preachers, Francis I sought to quell the brewing religious strife. Conservatives and evangelical partisans, however, continued to wage low-grade conflict throughout the late spring and summer. The strife escalated to yet another peak of agitation by November, when further evangelical ‘provocation’ sparked more bitter reprisals by conservatives. The event was Nicolas Cop’s All Saints’ Day oration to the assembled nations of the University of Paris, which constituted a second major public attempt to legitimate the evangelical cause. Even before news of Roussel’s house arrest and Beda and the preachers’ exile became known in Paris on 25 May, a war of libelous verse between evangelicals and conservatives played out in printed placards on the walls of the university. A week before the royal edict, a proevangelical handbill went up with a long poem in French mocking the four preachers who would soon be exiled as well as two doctors of theology of the College of Navarre, including Pierre de Cornibus, who, along with Beda, led the conservatives. Once the preachers’ banishment became known, a ‘zealot’ ripped the mocking placards down. On the twenty-seventh others were pasted up calling for the “damned Lutheran dogs” to be burned—“au feu, au feu” was the refrain—so that their memory would be erased. They concluded: “Do it in justice. God has given us permission,” implying, just as the Franciscan preacher had

128 “L’on est à ceste heure à parfaire le procès de maistre Gérard, où j’espère que, la fin bien congneue, le Roy trouvera qu’il est digne de mieulx que du feu, et qu’il n’a jamais tenu opinion pour le mériter, ny quy sente nulle chose hérétique. Il y a cinq ans que je le congnois, et croyés que sy je y eusse veu une chose doubteuse, je n’eusse point voulu souffrir sy longuement une telle poison, ny y employer mes amis.” Marguerite to Montmorency, [c. May 1533], Génin 1, no. 110, 298–302 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 566). See also her second letter to Montmorency, [June? 1533], (Jourda, Répertoire, 570 with transcription of letter) in which Marguerite alludes to the reception of “les accusations” against Roussel at court as well as to a lost letter she wrote to Francis I in her preacher’s favor (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 571).

legitimating the evangelical movement, –

427

argued, that the people had divine sanction to act when royal justice failed to extirpate heresy. The following day verses targeting Roussel went up.129 Clément Marot, who may have been in Paris at the time, responded to the placard against the Lutheran dogs with two poems, which were printed almost immediately thereafter in the July 1533 Lyon edition of his Adolescence clémentine. He called for the “crazy preachers” to be thrown “en l’eau, en l’eau” for having fomented sedition and trying to stir up war between the people and “bons precepteurs,” meaning Roussel and his confreres.130 It continued to be a hot summer of agitation on both sides. In the Empire, Rhegius passed on to Melanchthon news he had had from France that, reminiscent of the religious disputations held in cities of the Empire, public debates about the new doctrines were to be held in both French and Latin. The evangelical side, including Roussel, the tutor to the king’s children, and the royal chaplain (sacellanus) would debate members of the Faculty of Theology before a special commission made up of Jean Du Bellay and other promoters of the evangelical cause ( fautores evangelici negocii).131 These proposed public disputations do not seem to have occurred, but their very planning reveals the court evangelicals’ desire to legitimate their cause with a definitive public judgment. The idea of having such an open disputation, interestingly, prefigured the raison d’être of the court evangelicals’ appeal to Melanchthon in 1534 and 1535 to come to France.

129 “Quotidie affiguntur schedulae pro et contra. Die Solis antequam de Regis decreto aliquid auditum est, non ita procul ab hospitio meo affixa schedula fuit bene longa, literis italicis eleganter, sed gallice et rhytmis conscripta, in qua pulcherrime suisque coloribus omnes isti theologi depingebantur, et praeter istos quatuor alii etiam duo, nempe qui theologiam profitetur in collegio Navarrae, et quem appellant de Cornibus.” Siderander’s report to Bédrot of 28 May 1533 contains other vivid information about the struggle between ‘oi theologoi’ and evangelicals, see Schmidt, Gérard Roussel, esp. 205–206. A probable inspiration for the Catholic placard’s attack on the “Lutheran dogs” was the tract by the popular Faculty of Theology member, Jérôme de Hangest, De academiis in Lutherum (Paris: Josse Bade, 1532), ch. 3 “De scholastica theologia adversus Cacocrypticos,” fol. LXIIIr–v, in which he rails against the “rabidum canem (Lutherus scilicet).” The author thanks Mark Crane for signaling this passage. 130 Marot, OP 2, 291–292, 1091–1094, and OP 1, 806–808 for Marot’s and Rabelais’s collaboration in responding to the events of 1533. 131 “Iamque dominus Gerardus et pedagogus filiorum Regis, tum sacellanus Regis, in palestra disputationis cum theologis Parisiensibus congrediuntur doctrinam evangelicam defensuri Latine et Gallice diebus alternatis; iudices designati episcopus Parisiensis et quidam alii, sed omnes, ut ferunt, fautores evangelici negocii.” Urbanus Rhegius to Philipp Melanchthon, from Lüneburg, 8 July 1533, as in note 123, ll. 18–22.

428

chapter nine

Meanwhile, conservatives did not remain idle. During the summer of 1533, tracts and images defaming Marguerite appeared in the bookstalls of Paris and a street play (ludus scaenicus) was performed against her.132 Later, on 1 October, students and masters at the College of Navarre staged yet another satiric play against her and Gerard Roussel about which Calvin and Sturm gave vivid reports.133 So too in the early autumn, members of the Faculty of Theology attempted to censure Marguerite’s Miroir de l’âme pécheresse (Alençon: Simon Du Bois, 1531; reprinted once by Du Bois at Alençon and three times by Antoine Augereau at Paris in 1533). Under pressure from the king and all the faculties of the university, the new rector, Nicolas Cop, son of the king’s physician, signed an affidavit denying that the university had censured her Miroir. In turn, the syndic of Faculty of Theology explained that the work had appeared on their list of books for review merely because it was anonymous. As William Kemp has demonstrated, Marguerite had Antoine Augereau reprint her text at Paris as these events were unfolding, with her authorship ever more clearly stated, augmenting each successive reprint with further evangelical content, including Marot’s first psalm versification. These editions were yet another salvo in the polemical wars at Paris.134 Soon after cowing the members of the Faculty of Theology to sign a declaration that they had never attacked the orthodoxy of the king’s sister, Nicolas Cop gave his famous All Saints’ Day oration to the

132

“Typographi in suis pegmatis, scriptura et pictura, et ludo scenico, laeserunt Reginam.” Sturm to Bucer, 23 August 1533, Herminjard 3, 73–74. None of the printed handbills or images have survived. The play, which Sturm does not describe, predates the College of Navarre satire, which was staged on 1 October. This ludus scaenicus was perhaps more a case of impromptu tomfoolery erupting in the school or street than the well-scripted affair staged in the important theology school of Navarre. Our sources give us only hints of what must have been a raucous multimedia culture of invective and dissent around the university. In addition to the placarding and satiric plays noted above, images, which have long been known as a key element of the German Reformation but deemed to have been largely absent in France, evidently played a role too. These images against Marguerite do not seem to have been exceptional. In the context of describing the daily machinations of the “mataiologi” (theologians talking foolishly) in May, Siderander described how he stopped to look at the “picturas et imagines,” which were being sold before the door of the College of the Sorbonne. See Siderander’s letter to Bedrot, in Schimidt, Roussel, 206. 133 For Sturm’s and Calvin’s descriptions of this play at the College of Navarre see chapter 2, note 9. 134 See Kemp’s precise and intriguing reconstruction and integration of text and context in “Marguerite of Navarre, Clément Marot, and the Augereau Editions of the Miroir de l’âme pécheresse,” Journal of the Early Book Society 2 (1999), 113–156.

legitimating the evangelical movement, –

429

assembled University of Paris. Drawing on the ideas of Erasmus and Luther, he called stridently for the free preaching of the gospel. His sermon was too bold. When he was forced to flee later that month, Marguerite and the Du Bellay brothers helped him to flee. René Du Bellay, Jean Du Bellay’s brother and vicar in Paris, tipped Cop off, and the regent probably traveled with Guillaume Du Bellay’s agent, Barnabé de Voré, who was just leaving on a diplomatic mission to Germany.135 Cop ended up in Basel. News of Cop’s flight, with the university’s official seal tucked into his bags, gave the conservative Cardinal Chancellor Antoine Duprat a perfect excuse to attack Lutherans in general. On 10 December he had Francis I sign letters authorizing yet another special commission, whose jurisdiction would supersede that of the bishop of Paris, Jean Du Bellay. Duprat sent this royal order with his further letters of instruction to authorities in Paris. Anne de Montmorency carried these instructions and helped to orchestrate the imposition of the special commission.136 The text of the royal order makes clear that the special commission was to have a general mandate to go after all heretics, not just proceed against Cop and his protectors: A cette cause nous vous mandons, et tres expressement enjoignons que vous commettez aucuns d’entre vous pour toutes choses laissées, curieusement et diligemment eulx enquerir de tous ceulx qui tiennent icelle secte Lutherienne, et qui en sont suspects et vehementement suspectionnez, et qui y adherent et les suivent, a fin que vous procedez contre eulx sans nul excepter par prinse de corps en quelque lieu qu’ils soyent trouvez et contre les fugitifs par adjournement à trois briefs jours, prinse de biens, et establisement de Commissaires.

By late December, René was fending off attempts by the court to force him to yield the bishop’s authority to this special heresy commission, which had in its sights Cop’s protectors, as well as two Augustinians, Couraud and Bertaud, who had preached evangelical sermons along with Roussel during Lent. Meanwhile, another agent in the network, Jacques Colin, abbot of Saint-Ambroise in Bourges, similarly reported to Jean Du Bellay that Marguerite was so worried about the case against

135 As René admitted subsequently in a letter to his brother Jean Du Bellay, 20 December 1533, from Paris, Scheurer 1, no. 168, 336–339. 136 These letters, which apparently remain unedited, are in contemporary copy in BnF Clairambault 334, fols. 289r–290v (with another copy on fols. 272 ff.). Scheurer notes the royal order in Scheurer 1, no. 166, 334.

430

chapter nine

Cop that she was going to make a special trip to court to plead on his behalf.137 This special commission, like the two sent to Alençon in 1533 and 1534, was designed to be severe and had an open-ended mandate to pursue heretics. According to reports sent to Martin Bucer, an edict was issued declaring that anyone convicted of being a heretic by two witnesses would be burned. The judges of the commission had over fifty suspects arrested, including a notorious evangelical lay leader, Barthélemy Mollon, the “Paralytique,”138 and Antoine Augereau, who was just then attending to the reprints of Marguerite’s Miroir as well as a large number of other pro-evangelical publications.139 Both men were eventually released, only to figure among the first to be arrested and executed during the Placard persecution for which the December 1533 special commission served as a rehearsal. Another of the men caught up in wave of persecution was a young arts master at the university, Nicolas Bourbon, who would go on to enjoy a reputation as one of the best Neo-Latin poets in France. He was a former client of Cardinal Tournon, to whom he had dedicated his first collection of poetry, the 1529/1530 Epigrammata, a work that he had had to suppress, evidently because of its strident evangelical content. Even so, his more circumspect 1533 Nugae had raised the suspicions of the defenders of orthodoxy. Because of this work and his sponsoring 137 Jacques Colin to Jean Du Bellay, 11 December 1533, from Lyon, Scheurer 1, no. 167, 334–335. Similarly, Martin Bucer reported to Ambrosius Blarer: “Über den Franzosen kommt bessere Nachricht [i.e., information since Cop’s arrival]; was ich über den Rektor geschrieben, ist wahr, das Übrige nicht. Die Königin von Navarra verhindert viel Schlimmes. Jetzt ist zu meiner Betrübnis der Landgraf beim Franzosen; was heißt das anderes als nach Ägypten gehen?” Ambrosius and Thomas Blarer, Briefwechsel der Brüder Ambrosius und Thomas Blaurer, 1509–1548, ed. Traugott Schieß, 2 vols. (Freiburg im Breisgau: Friedrich Ernst Fehsenfeld, 1908 and 1910), vol. 1, no. 396, 466–469; 469. 138 Passing on news from Paris to Ambrosius Blarer in January 1534, Martin Bucer reported on the severity of the repression and the number incarcerated. See Briefwechsel der Brüder Ambrosius und Thomas Blaurer, vol. 1, no. 390, 458–460. The “Paralytique” Mollon is mentioned prominently by both Christophe Hérault in his testimony cited below, as well as in Crespin’s account of the Placards in his Martyrology as a prominent member in evangelical circles in Paris. See notes 152 and 153, and Jean Crespin, Histoire des martyrs persecutéz et mis à morts pour la vérité de l’évangile, depuis le temps des apostres jusques à présent (1619), ed. Daniel Benoît, 3 vols. (Toulouse, 1885–1889), vol. 1, 302–303. 139 See appendix B I 1 for the years 1533 and 1534 during which Augereau, or most probably, his editorial backers, published a spate of patristic texts by Augustine and Prosper of Aquitaine on grace and free will, which were foundational texts for evangelical theology.

legitimating the evangelical movement, –

431

of the evangelical lessons or preaching of his famulus, he was thrown into prison on suspicion of heresy. Though little is known about him, he was clearly prominent among those known as “Geraldini,” that is, disciples of Gérard Roussel, a group that included the young John Calvin.140 His importance among them is indicated by the fact that, following Bourbon’s arrest, Marguerite obtained his release in early 1534 and secured safe haven for him with Anne Boleyn in England, where, incidentally, Holbein sketched his portrait.141 Marguerite later recalled Bourbon to France to serve as tutor to her daughter Jeanne d’Albret. In the meantime, in December 1533, Antoine Marcourt’s circle at Neuchâtel published the Confession de Noël Beda, a spurious conversion account in which a supposedly repentant Beda encourages Francis I to join him in renouncing scholastic theology and embrace the evangelical cause. Having been apprised of the tract’s publication by the French ambassador in Switzerland, Chancellor Duprat used the occasion to convince Francis I to allow Beda and the other banished preachers to return to Paris in order to repudiate the tract, which was an obvious forgery, and to preach against heretics.142 Beda was allowed to return, but he set about denouncing the king’s lecteurs royaux and was soon banished again. Then, blow matching blow, during Lent 1534, Marguerite again attempted to have Roussel preach under the sponsorship of Bishop Jean Du Bellay at Notre-Dame Cathedral. This time, an angry mob succeeded in chasing him from the pulpit, forcing him to escape through a chapel and take refuge in the bishop’s house nearby.143

140 See Jean Dupèbe, “Un Document sur les persécutions de l’hiver 1533–1534 à Paris,” BHR 48 (1986), 405–417. 141 CE 1, 179–180. 142 Duprat informed the king of this work on 20 December and sent instruction to the grand master, Anne de Montmorency, who had just left for Paris, to oversee the institution of the special heresy commission against Cop and other heretics, to have Beda recalled. See, BnF Clairambault 313, fol. 339r, the cardinal of Sens (Duprat) to Francois I. Duprat further suggests a plan of action to be taken against a ‘Lutheran printer’ in Paris with connections to Switzerland, who had been arrested previously. 143 Pierre Driart reports that on 1 April 1534 Roussel was prevented from preaching at Notre-Dame, “par les auditeurs comme estimé suivant la doctrine de Lhuter.” See Driart 167. Christophe Hérault, one of Roussel’s followers, who was apprehended at Antwerp in the aftermath of the Placards, made reference to this event in his deposition. See note 152 below.

432

chapter nine

Placards and Reprisals, 1534–1535 All this ferment in Paris came to an explosive conclusion with the clandestine posting of Antoine Marcourt’s placard against the Mass on the night of 17–18 October 1534. The Parlement of Paris moved quickly, investigating, imprisoning, and sending to the flames the first victims within weeks. Francis I gave belated approval and slowly moved towards Paris.144 On 13 January, after a dozen people had been executed and Francis I had returned to the vicinity of the capital, radical Sacramentarians poured salt into the psychological wounds inflicted on Christ’s real bodily presence by again distributing another attack on the Mass in the form of a pamphlet, Marcourt’s Petit traicté . . . de l’Eucharistie. The Paris magistrates redoubled the repression of heretics. Francis I then gave the judicial terror his active support: he participated in a daylong penitential procession at Paris in which he gave a speech, vowing that he would extirpate heresy, sparing no one, not even his own sons should they be found guilty. The execution of six heretics in different parts of the city punctuated his promise. During the crackdown of these months, twenty-four were executed, over two hundred were imprisoned, and scores more escaped, for whose arrest a general warrant was issued. Whoever was responsible for posting the Placards, the Parisian authorities spread their nets wide, targeting several well-known groups of heretics, not just in Paris but also from other places previously identified as infected with heresy, from nearby Alençon to faraway Grenoble and the Dauphiné. The lists of those executed, imprisoned, and wanted included figures great and small with ties to Marguerite and her network. The mostwanted list of over seventy named suspects, who were in flight, was headed by the names of Marguerite’s almoner, Pierre Caroli, Roussel’s collaborators in the preaching campaign of 1533 (the priest Jehan Retif and the Augustinians Jean Couraud and François Bertaud), Marguerite’s secretary, the poet Clément Marot, and Mathurin Cordier, a noted humanist (and Calvin’s teacher at Paris), who would remain in contact with evangelicals in Marguerite’s circle after his flight to Switzerland.145

144

For the parlement’s and king’s reactions, see Monter, Judging the French Reformation, 69–75. For the Placards see Berthoud, Antoine Marcourt. 145 See chapter 11, note 43 et infra for Claude Baduel’s continuing relations with Cordier in the late 1540s.

legitimating the evangelical movement, –

433

Others figures on the list, who were less directly at the center of the public eye yet clearly related to the network, included her printer from Alençon, Simon Du Bois, Marot’s friend and recipient of his coq-à-l’asne poems, Lyon Jamet, and the aforementioned metal smith, François Ledevyn of Alençon.146 Among those executed one finds Antoine Augereau, who reprinted Marguerite’s Miroir three times in Paris in 1533,147 and Étienne de La Forge, who was a leading figure in the Paris evangelical community.148 He was fondly remembered by Calvin in his Contre la secte phantastique et furieuse des Libertins (1545) as an upstanding Christian at whose house the faithful had gathered. What Calvin did not mention and no one has seemed to notice is that Marguerite succored de La Forge’s family. De La Forge’s son Étienne is found on her rolls in 1539 as one of her escolliers pensionnaires.149 Marguerite may well have helped his widow, Pellone Bouzin, who was sentenced to perform honorable amendment in April 1535 and had her goods confiscated. One year after her husband Étienne’s execution, she married Jean [Johannes] Kléberg, “le bon allemand,” a rich German banker who had recently settled at Lyon and would become a pillar of the evangelical community there.150 With the help of unnamed friends at court, Kléberg obtained for his new wife the posthumous rehabilitation of Étienne de La Forge from

146 Only 53 of the names of those sought by parlement survive. See the works by Berthoud cited in note 5 and the unsigned article, “Les hérétiques ajournés par les gens du roi, avec Pierre Caroli, Clément Marot, Marthurin Cordier, etc.,” BSHPF 11 (1862), 253–258. 147 See William Kemp’s article in note 134, Nathaniel Weiss, “Une victime du Miroir de l’âme pécheresse de Marguerite d’Angoulême, sœur de François Ier: L’imprimeur Antoine Augereau et sa famille (1534–1559),” BSHPF 42 (1893), 242–47; and A de Montaiglon, “Antoine Augereau, natif du Poictou, d’après la Liste des hérétiques ajournés par les gens du Roi (Bibl. Munic. de Soissons, ms. 189, fol. 79),” BSHPF 11 (1862), 354–258. 148 Étienne de La Forge, who was originally from Tournai, may have provided another link besides that of Lefèvre (see chapter 7) between French evangelicals and the printer Martin Lempereur at Antwerp via his family in the Low Countries. Lempereur published Molinet’s La complainte de la terre sainte “. . . pour Jean de la Forge demeurant à Tournay devant la court de l’evesque” in 1532. W. G. Moore, La Réforme allemande et la littérature française: Recherches sur la notoriété de Luther en France, Publications de la Faculté des Lettres de l’Université de Strasbourg 52, (Strasbourg: Publication de la Faculté des Lettres, 1930), 86. 149 Lefranc, Comptes, 79 and 96. 150 See Nathaniel Weiss, “Le réformateur Aimé Maigret, Le martyr Étienne de la Forge et Jean Kleberg.” BSHPF 39 (1890), 245–269; and idem, “François Ier accorde à la veuve d’Étienne de la Forge l’héritage du martyr, que le fisc n’avait pas encore saisi, Hesdin, mars 1537,” BSHPF 39 (1890), 269–271.

434

chapter nine

condemnation for being a Sacramentarian so that she could secure the remainder of his estate for the maintenance of her children by La Forge. So too, as we saw above Marguerite provided a huge dowry gift in 1544 that went, via the marriage of her servant Paul Mabon’s daughter, to a certain François Ledevyn, who was either the same man or a surviving relative of the François Ledevyn from Alençon who appeared on the 1535 post-placard most-wanted list.151 Marguerite’s connection with the evangelical cell in Paris went deeper still. In early 1535, another rich émigré merchant at Paris, Christophe Hérault, whose name also figured on the most-wanted list, was caught at Antwerp.152 In his deposition, he described his circle of friends, which included Étienne de La Forge, and a number of others who were executed, arrested, or sought during the post-Placard crackdown.153 Evidently somewhat proud of his prominence in the group, he claimed to have intervened with Marguerite the previous year on behalf of Gérard Roussel and several of their incarcerated brethren. Moreover, though its title did not leave a lasting impression on him, he also admitted to owning a copy of Marguerite’s Miroir or possibly Dialogue en forme vision nocturne, “ ‘Le livret de la Royne de Navarre,’ [sans] scavoir declarer l’intitulacion d’icelluy.” Most importantly, his testimony proves that the list of those executed and pursued for the Placards contains a profile of the network on the ground level. Hérault related in some detail that parlementary officials had found those responsible for the Placards as well as other suspects specifically by searching the homes of people who were on a list complied by authorities of those who had attended Roussel’s sermons in 1533 and early 1534. While this local evangelical group’s activities are only hinted at in the deposition of Christophe Hérault, it is clear that they were looking to Marguerite and Roussel as their champions to promote the evangelical cause and protect it as well when the Placards gave authorities an opportunity to strike at them. Marguerite had taken

151

See note 62 above. Julius Frederichs, De Secte der Loïsten of Antwerpsche Libertijnen, 1525–1545: Eligius Pruystinck (Loy de Schaliedecker) en Zijne Aanhangers (Gent: J. Vuylsteke; ’s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff, 1891); and idem, “Un luthérien français devenu Libertin Spirituel: Christophe Hérault et les Loïstes d’Anvers (1490–1544),” BSHPF 41 (1892), 250–269. 153 For further information on those mentioned by Hérault, see Gabrielle Berthoud’s detailed notes on the heretics in flight sought by the parlement, “Les ‘Ajournés’ du 25 janvier 1535,” BHR 25 (1963), 307–324. 152

legitimating the evangelical movement, –

435

on that role for herself, first, by having Roussel preach, and then in the aftermath of the Placards, when she tried to convince her brother, perhaps disingenuously, that the Placards had been posted by those who wanted to unleash judicial violence against her protégés.154 Furthermore, Hérault’s deposition proves, as both sympathizers at the time as well as later Reformed apologists had to admit: those who posted the placards were zealous hotheads in the extended evangelical community that stretched from Paris through other French centers to cities of refuge abroad. As Crespin related in his martyrology, these people had acted despite warnings by leaders like the Augustinian preacher Couraud.155 Writing to Melanchthon in early March 1535, Johann Sturm lamented about the horrible consequences of these radicals within the evangelical camp: I wrote to you last year about how well things were going for us, how reasonably one hoped for square-dealing from the king. At that time, we congratulated one another, but madmen have nearly snatched the opportunity from us.156

Again, in Paris as at Meaux and Alençon, the rash acts of a few had completely undermined years of careful work by leaders like Marguerite and the Du Bellays. Lack of command and control over the members of the network once it began to attract large numbers of adherents from different sectors of society continued to be a major internal weakness of the movement Marguerite and her network were fostering.

154 In December 1542, long after these events, Marguerite reminded her brother of her conspiracy theory about the origins of the Placards. Speaking of the king’s orders to the Parlement [of Bordeaux]: “Car comme vous desirez que l’innocent ne soit prevenu par malice, aussy vous voulez que le téméraire et qui tourne l’escripture de Dieu en liberté de la chaire et désobéissance des supérieurs soient pugnis, . . . et n’y a houme que ayme à lire la Sainte Escripture, que, s’il voit quelqu’un en parles légierement, qui ne le repraigne, plus pour la crainte de vous desplaire que de pugnisions. Dieu merci, Monseigneur, nul des nostres n’ont esté trouvés sacramentaires, combien qu’ils n’ont guères porté maindres peines; et ne me puis garder de vous dire qu’il vous souviengne de l’opinion que j’avois que les vilains placars estoient faits par ceux qui les cherchent aux aultres.” Emphasis added. Génin 2, no. 114, 196 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 903). 155 Crespin, Histoire des martyrs, vol. 1, 297–305, esp. 302. 156 “Scripsi tibi superiori anno, quam pulchre staremus, quam bene de Regis aequitate sperandum esset; gratulabamur tum nobis invicem, sed eam occasionem homines furiosi prope nobis abstulerunt.” Herminjard 3, no. 498, 266–271; 267.

436

chapter nine An Improbable Religious Concord, 1533–1536

The dramatic events at Paris coincided with a daring attempt by the evangelical faction at the French court to build an alliance between France, the German Protestants, England, and the pope. As Henry VIII’s break with Rome unfolded, Marguerite and the Du Bellay brothers steered French policy to pursue a religious concord and thereby a defensive alliance with these powers against the Hapsburg. This conjunction of interests opened up a seemingly real possibility for religious peace in Europe and evangelical reform in France. The Appeal to the German Protestants While Gérard Roussel’s and Nicolas Cop’s sermons stirred the domestic scene in 1533, the Du Bellay brothers were laying the groundwork for this ambitious alliance. In the late 1520s they had begun recruiting a corps of extremely talented German scholars at the University of Paris, which came to include Johann Sturm, Gervais Wain, Ulrich Geiger, and Johannes Sleidan.157 Emulating a move contemplated by the English in 1533, the Du Bellay brothers managed in early 1534 to convince Francis I to appeal to Melanchthon and other German reformers for advice about the possibility of settling the differences separating Catholics and Protestants.158 Then even amidst the flames of the post-Placards executions in March 1535, using the testimony of their relative Barnabé de Voré about Melanchthon’s upstanding life and genius as a sort of intellectual aristocrat, the Du Bellays convinced Francis I to do the following: 1) protect Germans in France; 2) reassure Protestants in the Empire of his continuing good will; and 3) invite Melanchthon and other reasonable reformers to France for a religious colloquy. The Du Bellays turned 157 For the Du Bellay diplomatic corps, see Bourrilly, Guillaume Du Bellay, 114–120. The following section is based on the works by Bourrilly, Seidel, and Brady cited in note 5. 158 The beginnings of these overtures likely date back to November 1531, when Charles V’s operative at Rome reported, “the pope has seen letters written by the kings of England and France to the Lutherans, in which they encourage them to obtain a Council such as that sect wishes, and not a General Council.” Muxetula to Charles V, Letters and Papers 5, no. 534, 246. This invitation for religious dialogue came on the heels of successful political cooperation in 1534 between the French and the Protestants of the Schmalkaldic League, which had enabled the duke of Württemberg to retake his duchy from Hapsburg control.

legitimating the evangelical movement, –

437

to Johann Sturm to write letters to both Melanchthon and Bucer to implore them to come, the ones that were cited at the beginning of this chapter. Meanwhile, Jean Du Bellay was sent to Rome to attract the new pope, Paul III, to this scheme as well as to convince him to defer the bull of excommunication he was preparing to issue against Henry VIII.159 The link between French overtures to the Papacy, England, and the Protestant princes is epitomized in one letter. In June 1535, on the eve of his departure for Rome, Jean Du Bellay wrote to Philipp Melanchthon to reassure him and his masters that French overtures to the pope were intended to build support for this grand alliance, not to undermine it. Shortly thereafter, Jean’s brother Guillaume reinforced the plans for a colloquy with an intense burst of diplomatic activity in the Empire. Despite the heroic efforts of the Du Bellay brothers, all of this came to naught by the end of 1535. The elector, whose political interests were turning towards appeasement with the emperor, refused to grant Melanchthon permission to go to France. In effect, the elector rejected the offer of a religious alliance that would have led to tight military cooperation between the Schmalkaldic League and France. Who had devised the French policy? The Du Bellay brothers had been the ones specifically to convince Francis I to adopt the course of conciliation with the Germans. They also carried out the brunt of the practical legwork. They drafted correspondence and diplomatic instructions. In 1534, they instructed Melanchthon and Bucer how to frame their advice on religious union in order to achieve the most favorable outcome in France. In 1535, they orchestrated the crucial diplomatic overtures designed to pacify German anger over the post-Placard executions. Throughout, they shaped the policy debates at court through their reports and those of their agents in Germany, Switzerland, and Rome. So too the Du Bellays were the ones who kept level heads and to whom German evangelicals in France looked for protection when Francis sanctioned repression after Cop’s oration and again after the Affair of the Placards, which by the early months of 1535 had led to eighteen executions.160 However, the Du Bellay brothers were also often away from court. 159

For Francis I’s instructions to Jean Du Bellay and the latter’s letter to Melanchthon just before departing, see Scheurer 2, nos. 238–240, 1–14. 160 Jean [Johann] Sturm to Philipp Melanchthon, from Paris, 6 March 1535, Herminjard, vol. 3, no. 498, 266–270.

438

chapter nine

Little remarked upon contemporary evidence and later sixteenthcentury partisan sources declare clearly that Marguerite, who was frequently at court, played a leading role in shaping Francis’s policy during these years.161 Members of the Faculty of Theology blamed Marguerite directly for prevailing upon her brother to invite Melanchthon to France to confer about a religious concord.162 Similarly, evangelicals in the Empire clearly knew that it was Marguerite and her allies at court who were orchestrating Francis’s overtures to the Germans. In the summer of 1535, Martin Bucer, who was in frequent contact with the Du Bellays via Johann Sturm, reported to the evangelicals in Basel that certain persons, alluding to the Du Bellay brothers and Marguerite, were directing French foreign policy towards a religious settlement. Heading a long letter in which he described the political stakes and tried to enlist the support of evangelicals in Switzerland, Bucer explained that: Certain eminent people in the king’s court, Christians proven by valid testimonies, who, since they have not been able so far to win the king to our, nay rather to Christ’s cause with other arguments, have attempted to prove that we ask for nothing more than a judgment of our case, indeed an authoritative one; and furthermore that by no means do we want to transform everything once and for all, but only those things which pertain to religion.163

161 The Histoire ecclésiastique, vol. 1, 26–29, credits both Marguerite and the Du Bellays with directing French policy towards rapprochement with the Protestants in 1535, but cites no evidence. 162 “Marguerite de Valois Royne de Navarre, sœur du Roy François I désireuse de voir en France Philippe Mélanchton, elle obtint du Roy son frère, par l’entremise de la duchesse d’Estampes, la dame de Cany et de Pischeleu sa sœur, que Mélanchton peut venire en deça pour conférer avec les docteurs de Paris sur plusieurs points de la Religion.” Nathaniel Weiss, “Pourquoi Mélanchton ne vint pas à Paris en 1535: d’après un texte contemporain inédit.” BSHPF 46 (1897), 311–313, citing BnF Latin 16576, fol. 299r, Censurae s. facultatis parisiensis, which is a seventeenth-century copy of extracts from the records of the Faculty of Theology according to Farge, Biographical Register, 496. 163 “Sunt optimi quidam et veris probati testimoniis Christiani in aula regis, qui, cum aliis rationibus non possint hactenus Regem eo mitigare in nostram, imo Christi caussam, conati sunt ut de nobis tesificarentur, nos nihil æque atque caussæ nostræ judicium et quidem gravissimum expetere, tum nequaquam velle immutata semel omnia, sed ea tantum quæ religio sit ferre . . .” Bucer to Thomas Blarer and Johann Zwick [February 1535], Briefwechsel der Brüder Ambrosius und Thomas Blaurer, vol. 1, no. 529, 641; Herminjard 3, no. 476, 199, n. 1. Bucer was just protecting the names of Marguerite and the Du Bellay brothers in this letter. The previous year, when reporting on Marguerite’s sponsorship of Roussel’s preaching and protection of evangelicals during the post-Cop Affair persecution, he had already explained to the Blarers that the chief evangelical supporters were Marguerite, her husband, and the Du Bellay corps.

legitimating the evangelical movement, –

439

So too, the well-informed late sixteenth-century Catholic apologist, Florimond de Raemond, asserted categorically that at this time Marguerite proposed to Francis a confessional concord with the Protestant princes based on a seven-point plan, which called for the marriage of priests, the cup for the laity, and programmatic changes in the rite of the Mass.164 This is an interesting and precise bit of information not specified in earlier sources, which, if true, makes the sermons of Marguerite’s almoner, Roussel, in 1533 and his subsequent theological treatises the most important sources for determining what points the French evangelicals at court were proposing as the basis for religious union with the Germans.165 The grand alliance scheme of the evangelicals at the French court foundered because it sought to bring together four powers that had incommensurable agendas. England wanted political profit, largely at the expense of the pope. Henry VIII had gladly sacrificed the ecclesiological unity of the church by deposing the pontiff as head of the English church, but would not compromise on doctrine. The German Protestant princes desired political protection, but not at the expense of giving up core evangelical doctrines. Melanchthon and other irenic reformers were willing, in the end, to compromise and recognize the pope’s temporal powers over the church, but not his doctrinal authority. To gain such recognition, the pope would, however, have to institute the necessary changes to bring liturgy and traditions into line with evangelical doctrines on salvation and the Eucharist. The pope desired to bring the English and Germans back into obedience to him. Some of his agents were willing to offer cosmetic changes and the reform of abuses, but not to give up the doctrinal authority of Rome. The French court, finally, was split between evangelicals and conservatives who had different agendas. Evangelicals aimed at significant reform in doctrine and practice, but realized that the key to securing Francis I backing was to achieve his diplomatic and territorial ambitions through such

See Briefwechsel der Brüder Ambrosius und Thomas Blaurer, vol. 1, no. 390, 458–460, and no. 396, 466–469. 164 Florimond de Raemond, L’histoire de la naissance, progrez, et decadence de l’hérésie de ce siècle, divisee en huict livres (Rouen: J. Berthelin, 1623 [1st edition, Paris: Charles Chastellain, 1605]), bk. 7, ch. 3, 849–854 in the 1623 Rouen edition. 165 This inquiry needs to be pursued. The findings about Roussel’s Eucharistic theology in chapter 11 suggest that French evangelicals would not have had trouble reaching common ground with the Germans, at least with Bucer and Melanchthon, on the central issue of the mode of real presence in the sacrament.

440

chapter nine

an unlikely concord. Conservatives sought to maintain traditional doctrinal purity and develop good ties with the pope whose political support would bolster Francis’s ambitions. They instituted the repressive measures on the domestic front that undermined German confidence in the seriousness of French proposals for concord, biding their time until evangelical plans played out to predictable failure. The Placards, in the end, did contribute to the undermining of French evangelicals’ diplomatic overtures, as scholars have long noted, but they were not the principal or immediate cause of their failure. In the aftermath, from 1536 to 1539, under the direction of Duprat and Montmorency, French policy turned towards the more straightforward path of inducing the emperor to accede to Francis’s wishes either through defeat on the battlefield, and failing that, a binding peace alliance, sealed by marriage, resulting in the exchange of territories that would bring Francis coveted Milan. Yet even after the concord negotiations had failed, one finds Bucer, Melanchthon, and Luther as well as the cities of Bern, Basel, Strasbourg, and Geneva writing to Marguerite in order, most immediately, to succor individual evangelicals and, more generally, all those oppressed for their religious views, as well as to reopen the religious negotiations.166 In 1537 and 1538, with the French court having turned towards Rome, Bucer could but praise Marguerite for her aid in the spread of the gospel while 166 The following list of letters addressed to Marguerite by evangelical leaders abroad is based on Jourda’s Répertoire and other sources as noted. 1534, June 13. Melanchthon to Marguerite in support of Baduel. Herminjard 3, no. 472, 189–190 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 597). 1535, December 23. Council of Geneva to Marguerite thanking her for her aid to the afflicted refugees, who had ended up in their city. Herminjard 3, no. 536, 381–382 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 606). 1535, October. Bucer to Marguerite asking her to help revive the stalled negotiations for religious concord, an unedited letter. Mentioned in J. V. Pollet, Martin Bucer: Études sur la Correspondance avec de nombreux textes inédits, 2 vols. (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1958), vol. 2, 508 n. 3 (Saulnier 1971, no. 605.1). 1537, April 3 [8]. Bucer to Marguerite. Having heard news of the unsuccessful mission by south German and Swiss cities to France, he pleads for tacit freedom of religion, freeing of religious prisoners, and exiles to return without having to abjure. Pollet, Bucer 2, 508 n. 5 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 671). 1538, May 31. Basel to Marguerite on behalf of Antoine de Castanet of Toulouse, who had studied at Basel. Herminjard 5, no. 715, 17 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 773). 1538, July 5. Bucer to Marguerite recommending Baduel and warning against the Spiritual Libertines. Herminjard 5, no. 721, 38 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 774). 1538, October 25. Johann Sturm to Marguerite. Mentioned by Sleidan in a letter to Jean Du Bellay. Bourrilly, “Jean Sleidan,” BSHPF 50 (1901), 236 (Jourda, Répertoire, no. 779).

legitimating the evangelical movement, –

441

warning her to avoid the errors of the Libertines.167 For the Protestants, one step was necessary as a prelude to an eventual alliance: Francis I must suspend heresy proceedings and allow co-religionaries in France freedom to exercise their religion. In 1535, Marguerite and the Du Bellays had been able to achieve a general amnesty first for Lutherans, then in 1536 even for Sacramentarians, on the heavy condition that both would abjure their errors within six months.168 With these royal edicts, the religious status quo ante was reestablished: don’t ask, don’t tell. So long as dissenters did not go public with their views, the crown would not pursue them. This was the limit of the evangelical party’s sway over Francis’s foreign and domestic religious policy during the late 1530s. Marguerite and England During the course of Henry VIII’s pursuit of an annulment, marriage to Anne Boleyn, Act of Supremacy, and eventual break with Rome in the early 1530s, Marguerite became a crucial partner. Henry VIII looked to her for help in strengthening Anglo-French relations, especially in 1535 when he appealed to Francis to break with Rome.169 Marguerite, in turn, tried to coordinate these enterprises with the broader goal of French evangelical diplomacy, which turned on building good relations with the German Protestant powers. On 22 June 1533, having heard formally from the duke of Norfolk and George Boleyn, viscount of Rocheford, of Henry’s marriage to Anne Boleyn, Marguerite wrote to the French ambassador in England asking him to extend her special greetings to the new queen.170 Under the guise of this simple expression of court politesse was the beginning

167

Jourda, Répertoire, nos. 671 and 774. For summaries of the edicts, see N. M. Sutherland, The Huguenot Struggle for Recognition (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1980), 336–337, and passim. 169 For French aid in helping Henry VIII with his great matter, see Joachim Le Grand, Histoire du divorce de Henry VIII, roy d’Angleterre, et de Catherine d’Aragon, 3 vols. (Paris: M. G. Baguenault, 1688); Guy Bedouelle and Patrick Le Gal, Le “Divorce” du Roi Henry VIII: Études et documents (Geneva: Droz, 1987); Bourrilly, Guillaume Du Bellay, ch. 3; and Le P. A. Hamy, Entrevue de François Ier avec Henry VIII à Boulognesur-Mer en 1532: Intervention de la France dans l’affaire du divorce, d’après un grand nombre de documents inédits (Paris, 1898). 170 Jourda, Répertoire, no. 569. 168

442

chapter nine

of a much deeper entente between English and French evangelicals.171 The following day, 23 June, the English ambassador, the duke of Norfolk, gave Henry VIII a glowing report about his two, five-hour-long interviews with Marguerite. He considered her: one of the most wisest frank women, and best setters forth of her purpose, that I have spoken with, and as affectionate of your Highness as if she were your own sister, and likewise of the Queen.172

This was no idle compliment. Norfolk goes on to report Marguerite’s long, detailed analysis of the factional politics at the French court. She related some important, though seemingly trivial details. The dauphin, François, hated the grand master, Anne de Montmorency, who, like some censorious uncle, had embarrassed the young man by publicly criticizing his choice in dress and mistress. More substantively, she explained that the grand master was promoting a number of pro-Imperial dynastic marriages at court, which would benefit Henry’s enemies, notably Scotland. However, she reported with some glee that not all 171 Further research will be required before the full extent of cooperation between French and English evangelical court factions can be assessed. For a useful summary of interpretations of court factionalism, its origins, nature, and influence on the course of the Henrician Reformation, see Joseph S. Block, Factional Politics and the English Reformation 1520–1540, Royal Historical Society Studies in History 66, (Woodbridge, UK: The Boydell Press, 1993), 1–8. Against a host of other interpreters, Block argues vigorously that religious conviction consciously and consistently animated the reform factions at Henry’s court and that these groups had significant influence in advancing their cause despite Henry’s own religious conservatism and the opposition of Catholic factions. James Carley has discovered material proof of both Anne Boleyn’s evangelical commitment, which some have doubted, as well as a significant connection between her circle and Marguerite’s: many of Simon Du Bois’s imprints, including the most strident anonymous texts, ended up along with similar material published by Martin Lempereur and other evangelical printers from across Europe her library. See Carley’s “ ‘Her moost lovyng and fryndely brother sendeth gretyng’ Anne Boleyn’s Manuscripts and Their Sources,” in Illuminating the Book: Makers and Interpreters. Essays in Honour of Janet Backhouse, ed. Michelle P. Brown and Scot McKendrick (London & Toronto: The British Library and University of Toronto Press, 1998), 270, and idem, “French Evangelical Books at the Court of Henry VIII,” in Le livre évangélique en français avant Calvin: Études originales, publications d’inédits, catalogues d’éditions anciennes, ed. Jean-François Gilmont and William Kemp, Nugae humanisticae sub signo Erasmi 4 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2004), 130–146. See further, Eric Ives, The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn: ‘The Most Happy’ (Oxford: Blackwell, 2004). As Carley demonstrates, her brother, George Boleyn, was one of the primary links between the two circles. George went to France on five separate diplomatic missions between October 1529 and July 1534. See, Bell, A Handlist of British Diplomatic Representatives, F 41, F 51, F 52, F 55, F 56, and cf. IT 19. 172 Letters and Papers 6, no. 692, 308–310.

legitimating the evangelical movement, –

443

boded well for Montmorency’s efforts to promote Franco-Hapsburg relations since Francis I was dissatisfied with his wife Eleanor of Portugal, Charles V’s sister. Norfolk related: She told me also that no man can be worse content with his wife than her brother is, so that these seven months he neither lay with her, nor yet meddled with her. I asked her the cause why; and she said, “ ‘Purce qu’il ne la trouve plesaunt a son apetyde [because he does not find her pleasing to his taste];” nor when he doth lie with her, he cannot sleep; and when lieth from her, no man sleepeth better.” I said, “Madam, what should be the cause?” She said, “She is very hot in bed, and desireth to be too much embraced;” and therewith she fell upon a great laughter, saying, “I would [not] for all the good in Paris that the king of Navarre were [no be]tter pleased to be in my bed than my brother is to be [in hers].”

Having been supplied with such critical information, the duke of Norfolk recommended Marguerite as Henry’s good and true friend. Even as Henry became disillusioned with the French, especially after they cut his pension in December 1534 and as the French cardinals kept failing to procure the miracle of a papal annulment during 1534, she nevertheless tried to facilitate close cooperation on military and religious issues, even going outside normal diplomatic channels to do so. By late 1535, after Henry had broken with Rome, Marguerite figured heavily in his diplomatic plans. Communication via normal diplomatic courier, however, was not safe. On 15 September, writing from Winchester, a French resident ambassador explained to Marguerite that he had had a good interview with Henry and Anne, but that did not trust sending information in letters, which might go through several hands at court, implying those of the pro-Imperial faction.173 With Marguerite and her allies having made overtures of their willingness to help, on 18 November 1535, Henry sent a special ambassador with instructions

173 “Madame la premiere foie que je vey le Roy et reyne d’Angleterre suyuant votre commandement, je leur fey voz tres affectueuses recommandations. . . . Et entre plusieurs propos ladite reyne me dict que son plus grand desir apres celuy quelle a d’avoir un filz est que dieu luy face la grace de vous revoir. Dequoy, Madame, je vous eusse advertie par mon sieur de Morette et depuis de toutes autres occurrences n’eust este que l’incertainete de votre venue a la court m’en a garde craignant que mes lettres apres avoir passe par plusieurs mains vous eussent este peu aggreables. Tellement, Madame, que je n’ay ose entreprendre vous escrire jusque a ce que par lettres de monsieur votre lieutenant general de Berry ay este adverty de votre arriver.” [Antoine de Castelnau] to Marguerite, 15 September [1535]. BnF F.fr. 3014, fol. 98r; Clairambault 312, fol. 15 (Jourda, Répertoire, 605). Letters & Papers 9, no. 378, 127, English summary.

444

chapter nine

to incite Francis to follow Henry’s example and make himself head of the French church. Such action, Henry proposed, would provide Francis with “inestimable treasure” from the confiscation of church lands, which would enable him, as Henry was urging him, to go to war with the emperor. Henry instructed his ambassador to consult Marguerite first before making such a suggestion to Francis, who had already rebuffed a similar overture, and only to proceed if she thought the plan likely to succeed.174 In essence, Henry considered Marguerite to be the most powerful courtier likely to be sympathetic to the ‘English option’ in Reformation affairs. Notably, historians have long held that the secularization of church lands was the main enticement that might, if ever, have tempted Francis to break with Rome had he not already gained effective control over ecclesiastical wealth through the Concordat of Bologna. The English ambassador’s report on Marguerite’s response to this plan has not survived. She did react, however, in a rather curious and secretive way. Within a month of Henry’s letter to her, a Frenchman calling himself the bailli (royal administrator) of Amboise came furtively and in haste to London claiming to be one of Marguerite’s servants, saying that he would speak only with the king. His arrival puzzled the English, consternated the resident French ambassador, and worried the Imperial one. The English and French made inquiries, but the diplomatic correspondence, the only source for this affair, does not reveal the purpose or outcome of this special envoy’s visit. French and English officials told the Imperial ambassador that this bailli was a heretic trying to use Marguerite’s name as entrée with Henry. He seems, however, to have been something more than an apostate fleeing to England. In France, the English ambassador received a satisfactory answer to London’s question about the nature of this bailli. On 13 December 1535, the ambassador wrote:

174 Letters and Papers 9, no. 838, 281–282: 18 November 1535, Henry VIII to Wallop: “Is sending Sir Francis Brian, gentleman of the Chamber, to the French king, to set forth certain practices with the queen of Navarre, which he thinks convenient should be declared to him after Brian has travailed with the Queen and found her inclinable.” For an impressive overview of Henry’s complex foreign relations with particular attention to French affairs but less emphasis on Marguerite’s role in it, see David L. Potter, “Foreign Policy,” in The Reign of Henry VIII: Politics, Policy and Piety, edited by Diarmaid MacCulloch, Problems in Focus Series (Houndsmill and London, UK: MacMillan Press, 1995), 101–133 and 267–276.

legitimating the evangelical movement, –

445

he trusts that the letters sent to Cromwell by Barnaby have answered it, as well as Bryan’s [another English ambassador] instruction to the queen of Navarre.175

The ambassador then reported that he did not have much to do in France. In other words, Marguerite had shot down Henry’s plans; they were not going to get a hearing from the king. Although Guillaume Du Bellay was making a final effort to revive the plans for concord at the assembly of the Schmalkaldic League in late December, the plans had been effectively dead since the end of August, when the elector of Saxony had refused to send Melanchthon.176 Lacking further letters from the English diplomatic corps, this bailli and his mission remain a mystery. However, it is clear that the excitement about him abated after they had spoken with Marguerite and found out that she had determined Henry VIII’s overtures would not be well received at court. It seems likely that Marguerite had sent a messenger to England outside the normal diplomatic channels to discuss the (unlikely) possibility of a French break with Rome, urged by Henry VIII. Such we can surmise since in the early 1540s she attempted to orchestrate just such a détente with Henry VIII outside the main lines of royal diplomacy with a view to constructing an evangelical alliance against Rome. After 1535, Marguerite continued to champion an alliance with schismatic England. In 1540, when the English were again seeking closer relations with France against the emperor, Marguerite advised the English ambassador about French affairs. During that year alone English ambassadors sent off at least seventeen dispatches reporting news, advice, warnings, and more gossipy stories about life at court supplied by Marguerite.177 So important was her help that, following her request, they used a cipher in their correspondence to hide her name and that of her collaborator, the king’s mistress, the duchess d’Étampes. This surprisingly deep relationship formed a central part of the Navarrian faction’s political aspirations. They saw England’s support as a key factor for ensuring the success of the international evangelical cause. Not surprisingly, after French overtures to the German princes

175 Letters and Papers 9, no. 980, 328–329: 16 December 1535, Sir Francis Bryan to Cromwell. 176 See Bourrilly: “François Ier et les Protestants: Les essais de concorde en 1535.” 177 See Letters and Papers 15, which covers the year 1540, nos. 130, 223, 224, 240, 253, 285, 332, 418, 459, 480, 543, 574, 842, 870, 930, 961, and 990.

446

chapter nine

had completely withered by December 1535 and Henry had executed his evangelical wife, Anne Boleyn in May 1536, Marguerite’s relations with England went dormant until the reprise of proposals for an evangelical league began again in 1540. Marguerite’s importance in English affairs thereafter and as a model to English ladies at court was poignantly attested in 1544 when Anne Boleyn’s daughter, princess Elizabeth, translated Marguerite’s religious poem, the Miroir de l’âme pécheresse into English,178 and again in 1550 when the Seymour sisters lamented her death in a published poetic dialogue.179 We shall pursue those further episodes of collaboration in chapter 11.

178 Marc Shell, Elizabeth’s glass within: “The glass of the Sinful Soul” (1544) by Elizabeth I, and “Epistle dedicatory” & “Conclusion” (1548) by John Bale (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1993). 179 Anne, Jane, and Margaret Seymour, Annae, Margaritae, Janae sororum virginum heroidum anglarum in mortem . . . Margaritae Vaesiae . . . Hecatodistichon, ed. N. Denisot, (Paris: Regnault and Claude Chaudiere, 1550).

CHAPTER TEN

THE ‘SONS OF APOLLO’ IN THE SERVICE OF CHRIST

Clément Marot, François Rabelais, and Marguerite of Navarre: they are among the seminal vernacular writers of the early Renaissance in France. We have seen evidence in the previous chapter that these figures got their hands dirty, if only with a bit of ink in the case of the first two, in the fray to legitimate the evangelical movement. Their involvement in the cut and thrust of events at Paris in the mid-1530s points the way to a broader consideration of the contribution to the evangelical cause made by not just these authors, but also a score of lesser and largely ignored evangelical literary figures who traveled in their orbit. It is a collective story, hitherto dimly perceived, one whose full import for the religious history of France has yet to be assessed.1 Given the large number of their publications, however, as a working hypothesis it is reasonable to suppose that this group of writers made a major contribution to religious discourse in France prior to the Wars of Religion. The following attempt to profile that contribution owes a great deal to the literary scholars who have studied and made available the works of some of these poets. Yet, as Gérard Defaux argued in his preface to the 1997 collected articles on La génération Marot, while the Marot renaissance is well in hand, many of his brothers still languish, dismissed, excluded, and without a modern edition of their works.2 This story indeed begins symbolically with the greatest French poet of the first half of the century, Clément Marot. Though he had been

1

The literature on the major and minor figures to be discussed below is, of course, vast, but, as will be argued, has yet to come to grips adequately with their collaboration in promoting the evangelical cause, and to a lesser extent, the shared religious themes in their writings. Helpful entry points into the literature on these authors are provided in the erudite articles in the two volumes edited by Gérard Defaux: La génération Marot: Poètes français et néo-latins (1515–1550); Actes du colloque international de Baltimore, 5–7 décembre 1996, Colloques, congrès et conférences sur la Renaissance 11 (Paris: Honoré Champion, 1997), and idem with Michel Simonin, eds., Clément Marot: “prince des poètes françois,” 1496–1996; Actes du colloque international de Cahors-en-Quercy, 21–25 mai, 1996, Colloques, congrès et conférences sur la Renaissance 8 (Paris: Honoré Champion, 1997). 2 See Gérard Defaux’s preface to La génération Marot, esp. 7–8 and 17–18.

448

chapter ten

active at court since the late 1510s, he did not publish his first major authorized work, the Adolescence clémentine, until 1532 when he was in his late thirties. Its prefatory epistle is a manifesto. In it, albeit in a rather guarded but nevertheless self-conscious way, he inaugurates a literary movement. He dedicates the Adolescence to “ung grand nombre de Freres . . . tous Enfans d’Apollo,” that is to his brothers, children of the god of poetry, hence ‘Sons of Apollo.’3 Few of the literary figures—following Marot, let us call them poets for shorthand—who subsequently claimed membership in these ranks had made their mark in print by that date. Soon thereafter, a large number of poets, among them some of the era’s most accomplished writers, published on a substantial scale. Notably, almost all of those who were outwardly evangelical were closely connected to Marguerite or her collaborators, the Du Bellay brothers. To what end were they writing? Beyond a bit of literary recreation (delectation), Marot promised his diligent readers that they would, “God willing,” derive some real edification (quelque peu de fruict), by reading his works diligently, but curiously he does not say of what type. He only hints through an extended garden metaphor that some of the goodness would be religious. He reinforces that notion, cheekily, by saying that if anything in his work deserves reproach then half the fault lies with his friends for having begged him to publish, if anything good, then all the credit goes to “the one to whom alone is due honor and glory.” Despite Marot’s reticence, even a less-than-diligent reading of his and his brothers’ works reveals that if certainly far from being wholly religious, these books are suffused with poems that exhort the faithful to piety, espouse controversial doctrines, and take polemical stabs at the enemies of the evangelical cause, all of which engaged with the Reformation contest. In light of what we know about their careers and the context of persecution in which they published, we can safely assert—such is the major thesis here—that in the 1530s, following Marot’s lead, these French poets quite consciously and collectively divined and filled roles as, if you will, the ‘oracles’ of evangelical religion and dissent. Their donning of the mantle of religious leadership was planned and timely. The weight of bibliographical research indicates that from the early 1520s onward censorship and persecution made it extremely difficult and, after the mid-1530s, nigh on impossible for evangelicals

3 The prefatory epistle at the head of the Paris Roffet 1532 edition is dated 12 August 1532. See Marot, OP 1, 17–18, and nn. 409–413.

the ‘sons of apollo’ in the service of christ

449

in France to publish religious works in any of the usual theological or catechetical genres, especially after the disappearance or death of the intrepid evangelical printers Simon Du Bois, Antoine Augereau, and Martin Lempereur by 1535. In effect, especially after the devastating crackdown following the Placards, the Sons of Apollo became the only public voice of evangelical reform within the borders of the kingdom. In order to get a sense of the range of their collective voice and its resonance in the religious controversies of the day, we need first to confront this group of writers and their many works head on. Table 4 below contains a long list, one that normally would be relegated to an appendix. Culled in fact from the much longer bibliography in appendix B, it is assembled here precisely because the size of this group and the significance of their collective literary contribution to the religious contest have never before been measured. No description containing a few statistics and illustrative titles could adequately convey the variety, size, and import of this corpus. The survey of their collective oeuvre that follows below challenges the generally accepted characterizations of the number and nature of religious books in circulation in France during the 1530s and 1540s. Only a minor portion of these writers and their works were included by Francis Higman in his seminal and indispensable bibliography of, what one might call, the ‘hard core’ religious literature appearing in French to 1551.4 Though far from complete, the following list presents an indicative picture of the considerable contribution of the Sons of Apollo to the religious ferment during the 1530s and 1540s.5 The authors and their works are listed,

4 Appendix B and table 4 are inspired and in substantial part informed by Francis Higman’s rich bibliography, Piety and the People: Religious Printing in French, 1511– 1551. It is to his honor and credit, then, that they attempt to build on his “basis for further research in the field of the religious, and more widely cultural, impact of the Reformation in the French-speaking world.” Here the hope is to show that, as Higman puts it, “what we might call ‘extraneous’ genres: songs, dramas, educational manuals, histories and so on,” were much more abundantly produced in France than has been realized. Further, the table demonstrates the importance of manuscript and Latin works, which are not in the purview of Higman’s survey, although he acknowledges their relevance. See Higman’s discussion of the major trends in French religious book production to 1551, 2–30, esp. 2, 4, 11. 5 The twenty-two authors on the list are included because their lives and works show them to have been manifestly engaged with religious issues and among the most active Sons of Apollo in Marguerite’s network. These authors associated with an even more extensive group of contemporary poets and prose writers. This larger group includes some conservatives, such as Antoine Du Saix, who clearly rallied to the defense of the

450

chapter ten

roughly, according to their closeness to Marguerite and, in turn, the importance of their literary contribution. After the authors’ names, are listed some salient dates in their careers, chiefly the periods when they or their works suffered for their beliefs, be it censure, prison, exile or flight, being put on the Faculty of Theology’s Index of forbidden books (from 1544 onwards), or even execution for heresy.6 Next are listed the titles of their works (dates and reprints to 1551 in parentheses), which engaged at some level in the religious discourse of the day. The major exception is Clément Marot’s oeuvre, which appeared in over twenty separately titled works in hundreds of editions: only his major titles are listed here, the total number of reprint editions are summarized. Asterisks signal those French works that do not appear in Higman’s bibliography of religious books in French: fifty-one of the eighty-five French titles cited. Six manuscript texts and thirty-four Latin works make up the balance of this list.

church, as well as many more whose ‘confessional’ profile and engagement, if any, in the religious controversies, has yet to be assessed. At one time or another, the Sons of Apollo selected here associated with the following writers, many of them during the 1537 Sagon-Marot querelle, which will be discussed below: Antoine Arlier, Andrea Alciato, Michel d’Amboise, Paul Angier, Claude Chappuys, Claude Colet, Germain Colin, Maturin Cordier, Gilles Corrozet, Antoine Du Moulin, Antoine Du Saix, François Ferrand, Nicole Gallopin, François Gaucher, Nicole Glotelet, António de Gouveia (Antoine Gouvea), Lyon Jamet, Louise Labé, Calvi de La Fontaine, Laurent de La Gravière, Jean de La Verrière, Jacques de Marbrée, Aimé Meigret, Edmond de La Noue, Sanctes Pagnini, Christophe Richer, Mellin de Saint-Gelais, Hugues Salel, Antoine Saulnier, Julius Caesar Scaliger, Maurice Scève, Benedict de Serhisay de Saumur, Jean Thénaud, and Jean Vaugris. Other poets seconded François Sagon in his attack against Marot as a heretic including: Jean Bouchet, “Copin,” François Denisot, Nicolas Denisot, Charles Huet dit La Huterie, Jehan Huguier, Jean Le Blond, François Roussin, Macé de Vauzelles, and Mathieu de Vauzelles. See Philippe Desan, “Le feuilleton Marot-Sagon,” in Defaux, ed., La génération Marot, 359–61. Among these, Jean Bouchet had already courted Marguerite’s patronage and support in defense of the traditional church in the 1526 printing of his Labyrinth de fortune et seiour des trois nobles dames. To these lists of literary combatants involved in the religious fray, one could add all the friends and allies in the cause of good letters whom the Sons of Apollo invoked in their works, such as those Charles de Sainte-Marthe names in his “Livre de ses amys,” in La poesie francoise de Charles de Saincte Marthe (Lyon: “Le Prince” [Claude Nourry], 1540), 226–237. 6 For the censures by the Faculty of Theology of Paris before 1544, see Higman, Censorship and the Sorbonne, and for works put on the Paris Index in 1544 and following, see J. M. de Bujanda, Francis M. Higman, and James K. Farge, eds., Index de l’Université de Paris: 1544, 1545, 1547, 1549, 1551, 1556, Index des Livres Interdits, vol. 1, directed by J. M. de Bujanda (Sherbrooke, Canada: Centre d’Études de la Renaissance; Geneva: Droz, 1985).

the ‘sons of apollo’ in the service of christ

451

Table 4. The Literary Oeuvre of the “Sons of Apollo” Marguerite and Members of her Household Marguerite of Navarre (1492–1549) —Attempt to censure Miroir 1533; censure of component work by Marot that had appeared in a Miroir reprint 1542 Martin Luther, Le pater nostre faict en translation et dialogue, trans. (MS c. 1524) Le miroir de l’ame pecheresse (1531, 7 reprints to 1539) Dialogue en forme de vision nocturne (1533) *Le caresme prenant du cœur bienheureux [Oraison à nostre seigneur Jesus Christ] (1535) La Coche, ou le débat d’amour (MS c. 1541) *La fable du faulx cuyder (1543, 1545, 1547, and in recueil 1546, 1548, 1549) *Epistre envoyee au roi par sa sœur unique, la roine de Navarre (1543) Elegia de amore divino et humano ex gallico reginæ Navarrorum [trans. of “La mort et résurrection d’Amour”] in Vallambert, Institutio puellæ ex Naumachio (1544) Marguerites & Suite (1547, 1549) La triumphe de l’Agneau (1548, 1549) Clément Marot (1496?–1544) —Prison 1526, 1527, and 1532; exile 1534–1536, abjuration 1536; censure 1542 and 1543; exile 1542–1544; Index 1544 x 3, 1556 x 1 Le sixième pseaulme (1531), Aulcunes pseaulmes (1539), Trente pseaulmes (1541) (47 other editions of his Psalms translations to 1551) *Opuscules (c. 1530) *Petit traicté (1532) *Adolescence clémentine (1532) & *Suite (1534) *Oeuvres (1538) (In total some 150 reprints of his many verse compositions and translations other than the Psalms appeared in stand alone editions by 1551. Most of these reprints were of his Oeuvres. Selections of his poetry appeared in some 100 works by others or in compilations.) Nicolas Bourbon (1503–1550) —Prison 1533–1534; exile 1534–1535 Epigrammata (1529/1530); Nugae (1533 x 2; 1538) Opusculum puerile ad pueros de moribus, sive Paidagogeion (1536 x 2) Commentarius captae urbis. Item de origine Turcarum Io. G. Egnatii (1539) Tabellae elementariae pueris ingenuis pernecessariae (1539 x 2, 1545) In Francisci Valesii regis obitum inque Henrici eius filii regis adventum, dialogus (1547)

452

chapter ten

(Table 4 cont.) Conjugum illustriss. Antonii a Borbonis, Vindocinorum ducis, et Janae Navarrorum principis epithalamion (1549 x 2) *Poems in Anne, Jane, and Margaret Seymour, Le tombeau de Marguerite de Valois, royne de Navarre, ed. Nicolas Denisot (1551) Charles de Sainte-Marthe (1512–1555) —Flight 1537, 1541; prison 1541–1543; Index 1556 x 2 *Poesie françoise (1540) In Psalmum septimum et Psalmum XXXIII (1543) *Poems in Nicolò Tomeo, Les questions problematiques du pourquoy d’amours, trans. François de La Coudraie (1543) *Oraison funebre de l’incomparable Marguerite, roine de Navarre (1550) In obitum incomparabilis Margaritae, illustrissimae Navarrorum Reginae, Oratio funebris (1550) *Oraison funebre sur le trespas de Françoise d’Alençon, duchesse de Beaumont (1550) In Psalmum nonagesimum (1550) Victor Brodeau (?–1540) —Index 1544 Les louanges de Jesus nostre saulveur (1540, 4 reprints to 1543) Bonaventure Des Périers (1500?–1544?) —Flight 1535?; ?Cymbalum mundi censured 1538 then on Index 1544 La Bible, trans. Pierre Robert Olivétan, prefatory material (1535) *La prognostication des prognostications (1537) *“Pour Marot absent, contre Sagon” in Charles Fontaine, Les disciples et amys de Marot contre Sagon, La Hueterie, et leurs adherentz (1537) ?Cymbalum mundi (1538 x 2) *Recueil des œuvres, ed. Antoine Du Moulin (1544) “Song of Moses” in Clément Marot, Cinquante deux Pseaumes de David (1545, 1547) Antoine Héroët, dit La Maisonneuve (1492?–1568) —bishop of Digne (1552–1568) *La parfaicte amye (1542) *Opuscules d’amour par Heroet, La Borderie et autres divins poëtes (1547) *“Douleur et volupté” printed in Marguerite de Navarre, Le fable du faulx cuider (1547)

the ‘sons of apollo’ in the service of christ

453

(Table 4 cont.) Jean de Vauzelles (c. 1495–c. 1557) —Simulachres (1542) on Index 1544 Ammonius of Alexandria, Histoire evangelique des quatres evangelistes, trans. (1526) *Lucian of Samostata, Le martire de verite, trans. (1531) *Police subsidaire à celle quasi infinie multitude des povres survenuz à Lyon; Avec les graces que les povres en rendent à Dieu (1531) *Theatre de francoise desolation sur le trespas de la tresauguste Loise de Savoie (1531) Les simulachres et faces hystoriées de la mort, ill. Hans Holbein, trans. (1538 x 2, augmented without his participation 1542, 1545, 1547) Pietro Aretino, La passion de Jesuschrist, trans. (1540) Pietro Aretino, Les sept Pseaulms de la penitence de David, trans. (1540, 1541) Pietro Aretino, Trois livres de l’humanite de Jesuchrist, trans. (1540) Pietro Aretino, La genese de M. Pierre Aretin, avec la vision de Noë, en laquelle il veit les mysteres du vieil et nouveau testament, trans. (1542) Jacques Colin (?–1547) —lecteur royal, abbot of Saint-Ambroise (Bourges), falls from royal favor c. 1537 *Eusebius, L’histoire ecclesiastique, trans Claude de Seyssel, ed. (1532, 1533) *Rufinus of Aquileia, L’histoire ecclesiastique en deux livres qui suivent celle d’Eusebe, trans. Claude de Seyssel, ed. (1535) *Baldessare Castiglione, Les quatres livres du courtisan, trans. (1537, 1538) *Conformité de l’amour au navigage (in Marguerite’s La Fable 1547) Pierre Caroli (d. 1550?) —Censured 1525 and indicted c. 1530 for preaching, ajourné after Placards 1534, conversion, abjuration, and further confessional peregrinations 1534–1550 Pierre d’Ailly, Les sept Pseaulmes du royal prophete David, exposees pour se retirer du péché, se convertir à Dieu, et prier devotement, trans? (1525 x 2) Tout en un mot (MS poem, c. 1530?)

454

chapter ten

(Table 4 cont.) Clients of Marguerite or Jean and Guillaume Du Bellay Étienne Dolet (1509–1546) —Prison 1534, censure, condemnation, and remission 1542–43, arrest, flight, return, recapture and censure 1544, condemnation and execution 1546, Index 1544: 6 works as author, 19 titles in 23 printings as printer; Index 1547, 1 as printer In Tholosam (1533, 1534) *Recueil de vers latin et vulgaires de plusieurs poëtes francoys composés sur le trespas de feu Monsieur le Daulphin, ed. (1536) *Gilles Corrozet, Deploration sur le trespas de Magadelaine, reine d’Escosse, trans. (1537) Carminum libri quatuor (1538) Cato christianus, id est Decalogi expositio (1538) Genethliacum Claudii Doleti S. D. filii, autore patre (1539) *L’avant naissance de Claude Dolet, filz de Etiene Dolet (1539) Francisci Valessi Gallorum regis fata (1539) Les gestes de Françoys, roy de France (1540, 6 reprints 1546) Brief discours de la republique françoise desirant la lecture des livres de la saincte escripture lui estre loisible en sa langue vulgaire . . . en rime (1542) Exhortation à la lecture des sainctes lettres, ed. (1542, 1544) Psalmes du royal prophete David, auxquelz est adjouxté son argument, trans. Pierre Olivétan, with additional translated material by Dolet (1542, 1543) *Le second enfer (1544 x 2) *Cantique d’Étienne Dolet, prisonnier, sur sa desolation et sur sa consolation (1546) François Rabelais (1494?–1553) —Flight 1534/35, under suspicion 1537, censure 1543, flight 1546, Index 1544 x 2, 1547 x 1 Pantagruel (1532, 13 reprints), Gargantua (1535, 7 reprints), Tiers livre (1546, 7 reprints), Quart livre (1548, 3 reprints) *Pantagrueline prognostication (1533 x 3, 1535, 1537, 1538, 1541, 1542, ?1544) *Almanach (1533, 1535, 1541) *La sciomachie et festins faits à Rome au palais de cardinal Du Bellay (1549) Charles Fontaine (1514–1570?) —Claims in c. 1536 MS of religious poetry that Marguerite had gratified him for gifts of poetry several times

the ‘sons of apollo’ in the service of christ

455

(Table 4 cont.) Epistres, chantz royaulx, ballades, rondeaulx, et dixains faictz a l’honneur de Dieu & Epitres de St. Paul aux Colossiens, Philippiens, et Philemon (MS c. 1536) *Les disciples et amys de Marot contre Sagon, La Hueterie, et leurs adherentz (1537) *Response a Charles Huet, dit Hueterie, qui feit du mytouart le Grys (1537) *La victoire et triumphe d’Argent contre Cupido dieu d’amours [by Almanque Papillon] avec la responce [by Charles Fontaine] (1537) Premier livre de la prédestination des sainctz, composé par sainct Augustin (MS c. 1540) *La contr’amye de court (1543 x 2) *La fontaine d’amour (1545, 1546) *Opuscules d’amour par Heroet, La Borderie et autres divins poëtes (1547) Jean Salomon, dit Florimond —Epistre included in attempted censure of Marguerite’s Miroir 1533; a component part by Marot in it was censured in 1542 Epistre familier de prier Dieu (1533 x 3, companion pieces to Marguerite’s 1533 Miroir) Jean Visagier (1510–1542) Epigrammata (1536, 1537, [French translation 1558]) Oratio funebris a Jo. Vulteio de Iac. Minutio Tholosae habita (1537) Hendacasyllaborum libri quatuor (1538) Inscriptionum libri duo ad Aegidium Boherum (1538) Jean Salmon, dit Macrin (1490–1557) —Threatened 1536? Elegiarum triumphalium liber (c. 1513) De Christi superbenedicti assertoris nostri morte ‘ephodion’ (c. 1514) Elegia de Christi morte (1515) Carminum libellus (1528) Carminum libri quatuor (1530) Lyricorum libri duo (1531) Elegiarum, epigrammatum et odarum libri tres (1534) Hymnorum libri sex, ad Jo. Bellaium (1537) Odarum libri sex (1537) Septem Psalmi in lyricos numeros (1538) Hymnorum selectorum libri tres (1540) De rebus in Gallia Belgica gestis et pace restituta carmen (1545) and Jean Du Bellay Odarum libri tres. Io. Bellaii cardinalis amplissimi poemata (1546) Epigrammatum libri duo (1548)

456

chapter ten

(Table 4 cont.) Epitome vitae domini nostri Iesu Christi (1549) Naeniarum libri tres (1550) Antonio Caracciolo (1515?–1570) —Mirouer censured 1544, errors retracted 1544 Le mirouer de vraie religion (1544 x 2) Jean de Boyssoné (1505–1559) —Condemnation and retraction in Toulouse 1532–1533 Unpublished Latin poems (MS, Toulouse) Associated “Sons of Apollo” Eustorg de Beaulieu (1495–1552) —Flight to Geneva May 1537, then Pays de Vaud *Les gestes des solliciteurs (1529) *Le Pater et Ave des solliciteurs de proces (1529) *Le mirouer et exemple moral des enfans ingratz (1529) *Les divers rapportz (1537, 1540, 1544) and Pierre Robert Olivétan, Les Psalmes de David translatez en langue françoyse (1539) Chrestienne resjouissance composée par Eustorg de Beaulieu, jadis prestre en la faulce église papistique, et despuis ministre evangelique en la vraye eglise (1546) L’espinglier des filles (1548, 1550) Le souverain blason d’honneur, à la louange du tresdigne corps de Jesus Christ (1548) “La generale croisade” excerpt from Chrestienne resjouissance in Arrestz et ordonnances royaux de la supreme, treshaute et souveraine Court du Royaume des Cieux (1550) Almanque Papillon (1487–1559) —?La bergerie Index 1544 *La victoire et triumphe d’Argent contre Cupido dieu d’amours [by Almanque Papillon] avec la responce [by Charles Fontaine] (1537) ?La bergerie du bon pasteur et du mauvais [also attributed to Marot] (1539, 1545) *Le nouvel amour inventé par le seigneur Papillon in Nicolò Tomeo, Les questions problematiques du pourquoy d’amours, trans. François de La Coudraie (1543)

the ‘sons of apollo’ in the service of christ

457

(Table 4 cont.) *Opuscules d’amour par Heroet, La Borderie et autres divins poëtes (1547) Barthélemy Aneau (?–1561) —Lynched as a heretic at Lyon 1561 Chant natal contenant sept noelz, ung chant pastoural, et ung chant royal, avec ung mystere de la natiuité, par personnages (1539) Desiderius Erasmus, Comedie ou dialogue matrimonial, trans. (1541) *Lyon marchant, satyre françoise (1542) *Pasquil antiparadoxe, dialogue contre le paradoxe de la faculté de vinaigre (1549) *Andrea Alciato, Emblemes d’Alciat, trans. (1549, 1550) *Thomas More, La description de l’isle d’Utopie, trans. (1550) Bertrande de La Borderie (1507?–1550?) *L’amie de court inventée par le seigneur de Borderie (1542 x 2) *Le discours du voyage de Constantinople (1546) *Opuscules d’amour par Heroet, La Borderie et autres divins poëtes (1547)

To some this may seem an odd list of ‘religious’ writers and their works, some of which are secular, even ‘profane.’ Note all those poems about amour. The short response is that since Marguerite’s works, including the Marguerites and Suite, which contain secular pieces, and Rabelais’s Gargantua and Pantagruel have been considered religious books by the Faculty of Theology, John Calvin, and scholars to the modern day, including Higman, for the same reasons so too should Marot’s Adolescence Clementine and Suite and just about all the rest of his oeuvre, not simply his translations of the Psalms. The same argument applies to the works written by the less well-known writers who followed the lead of the queen and “the prince of French poets.” The full justification for including these authors can only be established by analyzing their careers and works in context. Marguerite and her network’s activities, the flare-ups of persecution, and the major ecclesio-political events occurring in the 1530s have been described above. In the 1540s, as the next chapter shows, the religious climate deteriorated, and Marguerite and her network remained as active as circumstances permitted. In surveying the literary production of her network over these two decades, the following analysis cannot hope to integrate content and context to the extent they deserve. The intent

458

chapter ten

here is simply to outline the scope of these poets’ roles in the religious controversies of the day and to lay the foundations for future analysis. The next two sections will trace, in turn, the way persecution shaped their engagement as authors in the controversies of the day and the religious content of their poems.

Poets as Religious Leaders The first thing one should notice in table 4 is that a great number of the poets suffered for their religious beliefs, deeds, and publications. Of the twenty-two, eighteen incurred some sort of trouble or penalty for expressing their religious views, many of them periods of exile or prison, and two of them, Dolet and Aneau, death. Of the three subgroups, those in Marguerite’s employ endured the highest rate of persecution. Only four of the twenty-two seem to have remained untroubled: Héroët, who retired his pen after a brief flit with literary fame in the 1540s and later became a bishop; Vauzelles, who may nevertheless have been tainted by association with the 1542 Simulacres, which, while suppressing his dedication found in previous editions, added clearly Protestant material that won it a place on the Index;7 Visagier, who remarkably was not censured despite several attacks on Noël Beda in his Epigrammata,8 and La Borderie, who like Héroët was ‘merely’ a love poet. These four were perhaps less engaged (or just luckier) than the other eighteen, who certainly courted the trouble that plagued them. The key point here is that following the indictment of the members of the Meaux group in 1523 and again in 1525, Marot’s incarceration in 1526, the execution of Berquin in 1529, and especially the violent crackdown following the Placards in 1534, the threat of persecution hung over the heads of all authors who wanted to write on religious subjects. While the mechanisms of censorship may have been imperfect, the threat was real. When the Sons of Apollo expressed ideas or championed people that church authorities had already declared to be impious or heretical, they were taking a conscious and calculated risk.

7

See Natalie Zemon Davis, “Holbein’s Pictures of Death and the Reformation at Lyon,” Studies in the Renaissance 3 (1956), 97–130. 8 See Visagier’s five invectives ‘In Bedam,’ in his Epigrammata, 155–156, 174, and 250.

the ‘sons of apollo’ in the service of christ

459

This fact has to be the touchstone of all historical interpretations of their careers and religious poetry. These writers and their readers were well aware of the danger. Étienne Dolet was disarmingly candid about the constraints evangelical authors and printers faced in his preface to his 1542 edition of Marot’s Enfer. His friend, Clément, who would enter his second and final period of exile later that year after his Psalms translations were condemned, had composed this poem during his first imprisonment for heresy in 1526. He had circulated the poem in manuscript, but evidently he had not dared to publish it, only to see it printed in a pirate edition at Antwerp in 1539. Dolet defended his re-printing of the work—the first edition to appear in France—this way: Et pource qu’en le lisant j’ay trouvé sans scandale envers Dieu et la Religion, et sans toucher aulcunement la majesté des Princes (qui sont les deux poincts que sur tout doibt observer ung auteur desirant ses œuvres estre publiées et repceues . . .) et que pareillement il ne blesse en nom express l’honneur d’aulcun, pour ces raisons j’ay conclud que la publication de si gentil œuvre estoit licite et permise.9

His argument was valid, but the decisive issue was who had the power to decide what was inoffensive towards God, the faith, or the king. Dolet paid for his pretensions in that regard with his life: the final determination did not reside with the poet or the printer but with ecclesiastical censors and secular powers. Taking into account the threat of persecution throws into relief four dominant features of these poets’ publishing careers. First, to publish any work that contained a whiff of heresy or merely touched on the religious controversies was not just an act of daring, but also ipso facto a major act of engagement in the religious debate. Note well, some of these poets, such as Marot and Charles de Sainte-Marthe, had already been targeted as heretics well before they published any of their religious works. Many others paid dearly after they did. The same daring should be ascribed to all the poets and printers who followed their

9 Dolet to Lyon Jamet in Étienne Dolet, Préfaces françaises, ed. Claude Longeon, TLF 272 (Geneva: Droz, 1979), 97–98, ll. 11–18. He continues in the same vein, ll. 50–56: “Mais (comme j’ay dict cy dessus), moyennant que la Religion ne soyt blessée, ny l’honneur du Prince attainct, et que aulcun ne soyt gratté (encores qu’il soit roigneux) apertement (comme par nom ou par surnom), le demeurant est tolerable, et ne fault par après que lascher la bride à la plume, ou aultrement ne se mesler d’escrire.”

460

chapter ten

example. The Sons of Apollo were playing with fire, and they knew it. When turning to the content of their poems below, we will see how incendiary they could be. Second, these poets embraced and championed each other collectively. They larded their works with poems in praise of one another and penned prefatory poems advocating the worth of their friends’ works. This brotherly embrace in print is so obvious that it hardly deserves demonstration short of a full analysis of who was praising whom, the results of which would allow us to triangulate a sort of topographical map to the early sixteenth-century literary world. Nevertheless, certain dominant features of the terrain are plain by inspection. Of those works that contain laudatio, rare are the ones that do not praise Marguerite as the group’s arch-patroness and Marot as their father in letters. In his 1538 Carminum libri quatuor, Dolet proclaimed his great friendship with Rabelais and Marot, in effect advertising that he and the other two formed a sort of triumvirate leading the Sons of Apollo. These three did, in fact, enjoy the greatest renown of the group.10 Furthermore, in lauding one another, these writers were constantly associating themselves as the intimates of suspected heretics, often explicitly in order to come to their defense on that very score. Marot’s flight to Italy, return, retraction, and exoneration following the Paris Placards occasioned sympathetic comment.11 During his exile, when a rival poet, François Sagon, accused Marot of heresy and ominously justified the recent post-Placard execution of heretics, the Sons of Apollo joined ranks and issued a furious counter-attack. The controversy occasioned some thirty-five different tracts—the only major pamphlet war of the early Reformation era in France after the 1518–1521 Magdalene affair—most of them against Sagon and his adherents.12 In such acts

10 “Ad Franciscum Rabelaesum, De mutua inter se, et Clementem Marotum amicitia,” Étienne Dolet, Carminum libri quatuor (Lyon: Sébastien Gryphe for Étienne Dolet, 1538), 30. See the last section of chapter 11 for evidence that Marot, Rabelais, and Dolet were iconic figures in evangelical circles. 11 During Marot’s exile, Visagier, a young Neo-Latin poet on the make, issued a long verse appeal to Jean Du Bellay, encouraging him to convince Francis I to allow Marot to return. See Epigrammatum libri IIII (Lyon: Michel Parmanteri, 1537), bk. 2, 126–128. This poem had probably already appeared in his 1536 Epigrammatum libri duo, but I have not been able to consult this editio princeps. Marot’s return was fêted by Bonaventure Des Périers, Recueil des œuvres (Lyon: Jean de Tournes, 1544), 120, and Eustorg de Beaulieu, Les divers rapportz (Paris: Denis Lotrian, 1540 [1st edition Lyon: Pierre de Sainte-Lucie, 1537]), D8r. 12 See the instructive articles by Philippe Desan, “Le feuilleton illustré MarotSagon,” in La génération Marot, ed. Gérard Defaux, 346–380 and Thierry Mantovani,

the ‘sons of apollo’ in the service of christ

461

of solidarity, the Sons of Apollo were presenting a broad front that exhibited the group’s strength and common cause in the promotion of good letters and right religion. Third, the omnipresent threat of persecution forces us to think carefully about why, when, where, and what theses poets published. Why, for instance, did Marot only publish his first authorized work, the 1532 Adolescence, at such a late date in his career? In his preface, cited above, beyond responding to the urging of his fellow poets, he claims that he was compelled to do so in order to protect his reputation: some printers had published faulty editions of his poetry without his permission. Two unauthorized editions had indeed recently appeared, one possibly as much as two years before. This work, Les opuscules (c. 1530), contained some of Marot’s most polemically charged early works: the “Depolaration sur le trespass de feu messier Florimond Robertet,” in which the figure “Death” preaches a sermon proclaiming evangelical notions of salvation; the c. 1530 “Epistre du coq a l’asne,” “La querelle de Marot et de Sagon: essai de mise au point,” in ibid., 381–404. Since a life was hanging in the balance, it is difficult to agree with Hawkins (as in note 23, pp. 15–40) that the quarrel was “childish,” “a ridiculous and puerile affair,” or Desan, that “. . . il faut tout de même admettre que ce fondement religieux (“évangélisme” contre “papisme”) fut bien vite dépassé par une cacophonie plus sociologique que théologique, liée à des associations d’individus,” 349. Desan is absolutely correct that Sagon and the other participants were crossing pens in order to win fame and favor. But as Mantovani argues in the same volume, 380–382, it was a serious quarrel based on an “accusation of extreme gravity,” which Marot and his partisans could not directly refute without defending the very ‘heretical’ beliefs that had gotten Marot into trouble. Thus, despite Sagon’s best efforts to keep the issue of orthodoxy and heresy in view in both his opening salvo, his Coup d’essay, and a subsequent riposte to Marot, Le rabais du caquet de Fripelippes (see A2v–A3r, B1v, and B3v–B4v), Marot’s supporters shifted the focus of the quarrel to other issues, especially matters of literary taste, style, and competency: matters important to their reputations as poets. Nevertheless, this was the closest France came to having a ‘religious’ pamphlet war, an illustrated one at that (see Desan for analysis of the woodcuts), before the lead-up to the Wars of Religion. For facsimile reproductions of 22 of the tracts, see Émile Picot with Paul Lacombe, ed., Querelle de Marot et Sagon: Pièces réunies (Rouen, 1920; repr. Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1969). A coda to this affair, unmentioned by these authors, is that, with Marot safely out of the way in 1544, Sagon dedicated his Apologye, en defense pour le Roy, fondée sur texte d’euangile, contre ses ennemys et calumniateurs, par Françoys de Sagon (Paris: Denis Janot, 1544) to Marguerite of Navarre. In it he continues his attack on heresy (D1r), and despite heavy criticism of the pope for behaving like the Levite priest toward the good Samaritan (Lk 10: 30–37) in his treatment of poor, beaten-down Francis I—Sagon’s poem was well-attuned to contemporary political events—he nevertheless affirms: “Vrai est que Rome, est, par un droit papal, / Mere de France, et secours principal, / Pour estre chef de la chrestienne Eglise, / Mais ceste mere ha converti sa guise, / Aydant plustost un estranger [the emperor], sans foy, / Qu’un trescher sien son vrai filz et son Roy.” (D2r).

462

chapter ten

the first of Marot’s satirical editorials on current events and religious persecution; as well as a little dissertation on the differences between papal and divine law, entitled “Chant royal sur le grant decret, que le pape ordonna pour l’homme, contre peché.”13 Though unmentioned by Marot, another principal reason for his decision to publish, it would appear, is that his patron Marguerite, who had just secured his release from prison for a third time, had authorized him to do so: the time was right. As we saw above, upon the release of Francis I’s sons from captivity in 1530, she had reinitiated a program of evangelical agitation. The next year, the same year that her conservative mother, Louise of Savoy, passed away, she began her own career as a published author of religious verse, albeit tentatively, with an edition of the Miroir by her printer Simon Du Bois, who was then in safe obscurity at Alençon. The edition, nevertheless, did not clearly own her as author on the title page. In the fall 1532, Marot took his turn, dating the preface to his Adolescence from Paris in August, which was precisely the season when her candidate for the see of that city, Jean Du Bellay, was about to be installed and, thereby, gain control over the episcopal courts that had competency over heresy. For the 1530s and 1540s one could multiply the examples of these poets’ engagement with Marguerite and her network’s attempts to promote reform. Returning to Marot, as we saw above, he was likely involved in the polemical placarding in Paris following Roussel’s Lenten sermons at the Louvre since he added to his July 1533 Lyon reprint of the Adolescence two poems against the preachers of the Faculty of Theology along with a number of other polemical pieces, which would only be dropped from future editions after his first period of exile.14 Later that year, as William Kemp has carefully argued, in the wake of

13 For the first two poems see Marot, OP 1, 207–223, esp. ll. 285–455, 310–313, and Defaux’s helpful notes on pp. 609–625, 699–708. The “Chant royal sur le grant decret que le pape ordonna . . .” does not, error apart, appear in either Marot, OP 1 or 2 as far as one can tell either from the incipit list or by inspection in the chanson sections. See Opuscules (Lyon: Arnoullet, [c. 1530]), fol. e2v–e3v. 14 In total, 46 poems were added to the July 1533 Juste edition, including several religiously charged rondeaux, which Defaux considers likely to have been written by Marot. See Marot, OP 2, 760–763 and notes on pp. 1348–1350 as well as the passages cited in chapter 9, note 130 and Richard Cooper, “Humanism and Politics in Lyon in 1533,” in Intellectual Life in Renaissance Lyon: Proceedings of the Cambridge Lyon Colloquium 14–16 April 1991, ed. Philip Ford and Gillian Jondorf (Cambridge: Cambridge French Colloquia, 1993), 1–31, esp. 17–20.

the ‘sons of apollo’ in the service of christ

463

the Paris Theologian’s attempt to censure Marguerite’s Miroir and the flap over Cop’s All Saints’ Day oration, Marot helped to strengthen the polemical edge of the three Paris reprints of Marguerite’s Miroir by Antoine Augereau, by adding several new liminary pieces including his first psalm translation. He also had a hand in beefing up a companion work, Jean Salomon Florimond’s Epistre familier de prier Dieu & Epistre familiere d’aymer chrestiennement, which was dedicated to Marguerite, adding to it two of his evangelical reflections, Sur la devise de Ian Le Maire de Belges and L’instruction et foy d’ung Chrestien. Marot was heartily engaged in the religious battles of those years. So too were others. At roughly the same time Marguerite helped to succor the victims of the 1532–1533 persecution at the University of Toulouse, Rabelais ridiculed the city for roasting its professors15 and Étienne Dolet cut his first teeth as an author with two strident orations In Tholosam, against those who attempted to extinguish men of learning there on the pretext that they were of the sect of Martin Luther.16 A few years later, after Marguerite and the Du Bellay brothers’ attempts to bring Philipp Melanchthon to France for a religious colloquy foundered, both Marot and Dolet issued bitter comment, slandering the Paris Theologians for refusing to debate with him, and, in turn, invited the reformer to laugh at France’s folly.17 In such conjunctions, we can see a clear connection between the poets’ message, their decisions to publish, and the broader agenda of Marguerite’s evangelical network. This conclusion rejoins that of Gérard Defaux, who beautifully summarized what remains, even after substantial work on the religious dimension of the leadings Sons of Apollo, a major agenda item for future research: On ne comprend rien à ce phénomène appelé “évangélisme” et “réforme” si l’on n’accepte pas le fait qu’il a fonctionné à partir de réseaux et de

15 François Rabelais, Pantagruel, ed. V.-L. Saulnier (Geneva: Droz, 1965), bk. 5, 29, ll. 51–58. 16 For Dolet’s orations, see Richard Copley Christie, Étienne Dolet, revised ed. (London: MacMillan and Co., 1899), 106–107. 17 See Marot, 2nd Coq-à-l’asne, “Epistre du coq en l’asne, envoyée à Lyon Jamet de Sansay en Poictou,” Marot, OP 2, 89–90, ll. 134–137 and Dolet, “Ad Philippum Melanchthonem: Quid maxime rideat,” Carminum libri quatuor, 31. About the same time, Beaulieu translated a short poem by Melanchthon, “Amor Mellilegus, Philip Melanthon, commencant, ‘eparuo alueolo etc.’ ” in Les divers rapportz (Paris: Denis Lotrian, 1540 [1st edition Lyon: Pierre de Sainte-Lucie, 1537]), D8v.

464

chapter ten complicités multiples, réseaux dans lesquels les imprimeurs—A. Augereau, Simon Du Bois, P. de Vingle, F. Juste, plus tard E. Dolet, etc.—jouent un rôle capital.18

He states this important axiom in the course of relating his discovery that during the summer of 1533, the printer François Juste, Marot, and Rabelais collaborated in publishing a number of works they deemed, as Defaux puts it, “useful to the cause of evangelism and the struggle against the Sorbonne.” While the foundation has been laid in many useful studies of individual literary figures, especially ones of the type “Marot and . . .,” “Rabelais and . . .,” the greatest desideratum in scholarship is precisely the lack of any adequate account of the Sons of Apollo as a group and, in particular, of their common creed and involvement in promoting religious renewal.19 Fourth, it should be abundantly clear, as implied by Dolet’s theory of the politics of publication quoted above, that while certainly bold in printing their religious verse, most of the Sons of Apollo subjected themselves to varying degrees of self-censorship. Indeed, the dilemma of when to speak out and when to keep quiet shaped Marot’s whole career. It is a major theme in many of his poems. By turns, he either leads by example in professing his faith and denouncing the defenders of false beliefs or in the face of persecution advises his fellows to keep quiet, even to dissimulate their views.20 For his modern editors, Marot’s calculated caution in publishing results in the major problem of accepting as genuine or not a whole series of stridently evangelical poems attributed to him, which are only found in unauthorized editions and

18

Regrettably, this major thesis is buried in a footnote, see Marot, OP 1, 808. In his preface to La génération Marot, 17–18, even Defaux shies away from profiling their religious views. In that volume, Christine M. Scollen-Jimack, comes closest to doing so in her important article, “Vers une typologie Marotique: Eustorg de Beaulieu, Victor Brodeau, Charles de Sainte-Marthe,” 193–209. With an excellent bibliography and clear presentation of the biographical and literary profile of “un poète marotique,” the article falters (in large part because of the lack of clarity in the literature upon which she is drawing) precisely when trying to describe the religious aspects of their lives and works. She characterizes Marot’s poetic heirs—not all of whom we would claim as core members of Marguerite’s network—somewhat vaguely as having circulated in “les milieux évangélico-humanistes,” of being “sinon des luthériens, des Protestants, du moins des crypto-Protestants à tendances évangéliques,” and of having “des vues religieuses fort peu orthodoxes,” but she does not give any examples or attempt to summarize what they may have believed or intended as writers actively engaged in religious controversy. See ibid., 198–199 and 208–209. 20 See rondeaux IX.I & IX.III, Marot, OP 2, 760–761, and the unpublished c. 1542 coq-à-l’asne “à Lyon” discussed at the end of chapter 11. 19

the ‘sons of apollo’ in the service of christ

465

in manuscript, including the “Sermon [Bergerie] du bon pasteur et du mauvais” and several of ‘his’ most cutting coq-à-l’asne. As his able editor Gérard Defaux rightly argued, it is better to take into consideration all the pieces ascribed to him. From the perspective of this inquiry, all those works, whether authentically by him or by someone usurping his name, especially those which reached print, must be included for they contributed to Marot’s public persona as not just the ‘prince of poets,’ but also as a leader of the evangelical movement.21 His several coq-à-l’asnes show most clearly that in addition to wearing the laurel crown Marot shouldered the mantle of religious leadership. He appears to have invented a new genre of poetry specifically to give free-wheeling commentary on the state of evangelical movement in France as well as his personal fate, a fate, which he knew was widely followed. This new genre, as Jean Girot notes, is marked by its epistolary form, its tendency to jump abruptly from one subject to another (hence its title from the French expression de sauter du coq à l’âne), its elliptic reference to contemporary events, and, above all, its satirical religious content. Marot seems to have composed them at regular intervals from circa 1530 to close to the time of his death in 1544. Of the forty-two examples of this poetic form identified by Girot, only ten were published before 1550, four of them by Marot. Three others preserved in manuscript are attributed to him. Marot’s close disciples, Eustorg de Beaulieu and Charles de Sainte-Marthe, also published a few. In the case of Nicolas Bourbon’s 1529/1530 Epigrammata, which was touched on at the head of chapter 7, we have a telling index of how severely these poets had to discipline their pens under the pressure of persecution. In his 1533 Nugae, he suppressed ninety-seven poems that had appeared in his 1529/1530 Epigrammata, a work that though printed was probably buried: no contemporary references to it are known and

21

As is clear from Defaux’s edition of Marot’s works, many of the most strident poems attributed to him that made it to print did so first in ‘unauthorized’ editions. The 1539 Antwerp edition by Steels was particularly rich in these texts. Whether or not Marot had sanctioned their publication, these pirate editions certainly functioned to test the waters. In the case of trouble, Marot could easily disown them, but if they did not cause a stir, he could feel safer in publishing them under his own name in France, as he did with the works that first appeared in the c. 1530 Opuscules in the 1532 Adolescence. See further Defaux’s discussions of the problem of attribution in his introduction to Marot, OP 2, as well as his notes to all the pieces “slapped” with an asterisk, especially those filling out the end of volume two. For the following description of coq-à-l’asne as a genre, see Jean-Eudes Girot, “La poétique du coq-à-l’asne: autour d’une version inédite du ‘Grup’ de Clément Marot (?),” in La génération Marot, 315–346.

466

chapter ten

the loose-leaf quires of the sole surviving exemplar were only found in 1990 as recycled filler material in the binding of a sixteenth-century work. The excised poems, some of which will be examined in the next section, were aggressive partisan shots in favor of the new evangelical doctrines. Still, as noted in chapter 9, the expurgated 1533 Nugae was even then deemed heterodox enough by conservatives in Paris, along with Bourbon’s sponsoring of controversial preaching at the university, to get him swept up in the wave of persecution following Nicolas Cop’s All Saints’ Day oration. Charles Fontaine’s unpublished manuscripts provide a third notable example of the impact of persecution. If one were to look merely at his published oeuvre, he would appear to have been mainly a love poet in dialogue with Marguerite, Papillon, Héroët, and La Borderie. His greatest public contribution to the religious battles was to be among the first of the faithful Sons of Apollo to rush to Marot’s defense during the Sagon-Marot querelle. Two surviving presentation manuscripts reveal his evangelical underbelly. His c. 1536 Epistres, chantz royaulx, ballades, rondeaulx, et dixains faictz a l’honneur de Dieu & Epistres de St. Paul aux Colossiens, Philippiens, et Philemon, which predates his first published work, is front to back a fully engaged religious treatise, containing mainly Christocentric meditations on Scripture. In the preliminary poems, he openly proclaims his intent to inculcate religious devotion. He aids the reader by citing biblical texts in the margins throughout.22 The last section of the manuscript contains his verse translations of three of St. Paul’s epistles. A second manuscript, dated to circa 1540, contains his translation of the Premier livre de la prédestination des sainctz, composé par sainct Augustin.23 That both works remained unpublished points to two further dilemmas faced by the Sons of Apollo.

22 It survives in a Vatican manuscript, Reg. lat. 1630. For a study of Fontaine, which includes an edition of Fontaine’s manuscript Epistres, except for his versification of Paul’s epistles, see Raffael Scalamandrè, ed., Un poeta della Preriforma: Charles Fontaine (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1970). 23 For his life, works, Neoplatonism, and a bibliography see Richmond Laurin Hawkins, Maistre Charles Fontaine Parisien, Harvard Studies in Romance Languages 2 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1916), esp. 45–46 and 268 for brief mentions of his discovery of Fontaine’s Premier livre de la prédestination des sainctz (BnF F.fr. 13201), which is a translation of the first part of Augustine’s De praedestinatione sanctorum. Fontaine’s manuscript Epistres was unknown to Hawkins.

the ‘sons of apollo’ in the service of christ

467

First, like Marot and Bourbon, Fontaine was not able to publish his most explicit expositions of belief. The same constraints seem to have governed Marguerite’s decisions about publishing. After having her Miroir and Dialogue en forme de vision nocturne printed in 1531 and 1533, she held back most of her numerous later compositions (Was there a son or daughter of Apollo who penned more lines than she did?). Many of these poems, songs, and plays have strong polemical religious dimensions. She only felt ‘free’ to publish a selection of them in her 1547 Marguerites and Suite once her brother had died and she had lost all power at court.24 As was the case with the Meaux group when it attempted to go to press in the mid-1520s, one suspects that for all these children of Apollo, there was much that they left unpublished or could only express in veiled terms when signing their name to a work. Eustorg de Beaulieu’s oeuvre provides a constructive counter-example. In 1537, he published his evangelical but evidently restrained collection of poems, the Divers rapportz, at Lyon. One month later, he fled permanently to the Swiss cantons. In his next public offering of verse, the overtly Reformed Chrestienne resjouissance, he was able proudly to declare himself “jadis prestre . . . en la faulce église papistique, et despuis ministre evangelique en la vraye eglise.” Second, it would appear that Fontaine was unable to publish his religious verse because, ominously, he failed to receive the permission and protection he needed from his patrons in order to do so safely. He had aimed high, dedicating: 1) his Epistres to the young cardinal and future leader of the Huguenot cause, Odet de Châtillon, 2) a component work, his “Déploration” on the death of Dauphin François, to the new dauphin, Henri de Valois (the future Henry II), 3) his translation of Colossians to Marguerite of Navarre, 4) those of Philippians and Philemon to the youngest royal prince, Charles d’Orléans, and finally, 5) his 1540 translation of Augustine’s treatise on predestination to Francis I. Fontaine did enjoy some elite patronage for his other poetic works,

24 Even then, Marguerite did not publish some of her most doctrinally charged poetry. Her unfinished Heptaméron, of course, was only published by her former secretaries some ten years after her death. For orientation in the complex subject of the attribution, dating, and publication of her works, see the second half Jourda’s comprehensive study of her life and works, in Marguerite 1 and 2, H. P. Clive’s bibliography devoted to her cited in note 1, and the individual volumes of the ongoing publication of her Œuvres complètes, 11 vols., general editor Nicole Cazauran (Paris: Honoré Champion, 2001–).

468

chapter ten

but not these.25 Similarly, the theologian and curate of Marguerite’s Alençon, Pierre Caroli, dedicated his only known poetic outburst, Tout en un mot, to the king. The work, which has no great literary merits, is another thoroughly Christocentric meditation, in which Caroli explicitly tries to inculcate in Francis I the first principles of evangelical religion and concludes with an appeal for the monarch to allow the preaching of God’s word.26 It too never appeared in print. When dedicating their works to Francis I and members of his court, the poets were certainly, like other ambitious humanist writers, looking for a payoff. It appears, however, that the poets were aiming for more than just a paycheck or a position. Given the controversial content of their poems, Fontaine, Caroli, and the other Sons of Apollo were making calculated, risky, and, as noted, evidently unsuccessful attempts to rally Francis and his chief advisors to the evangelical cause, or at least to neutralize their potential opposition.27 Just so, Marot dedicated his most important works to the king’s closest advisors, carefully selecting the poems he put into the presentation manuscripts.28 In some instances, there was a clear connection between their production of presentation manuscripts and Marguerite’s evangelical politics. During Anne Boleyn’s brief reign, when Marguerite was actively collaborating with the English, a pre-publication presentation copy of Marot’s or Papillon’s “veritable summary of evangelical [doctrine],” 25

See Scalamandrè, ed., Un poeta della Preriforma: Charles Fontaine, passim. Linguistically and theologically, Caroli’s poem is curiously maladroit. Drawing on the prologue to the Gospel of John, the poem centers on Jesus as God’s divine logos, which Caroli translates as “mot” (word), not “parole” (the spoken word) as most humanists would have done following Erasmus’s suggestion that the Latin sermo (the spoken word), not verbum (word), which was used in the Vulgate, was the better translation for logos. For text and introduction, see Arthur Piaget “Épître de Pierre Caroli à François Ier,” in Documents inédits sur la Réformation dans le Pays de Neuchâtel (Neuchâtel: Archives de l’État, 1909), 493–507. 27 Nicolas Bourbon dedicated his 1529/1530 Epigrammata to Cardinal Tournon, who was considered for a time to be a supporter of both the new learning and the new doctrines. In the 1540s Marguerite would revile the cardinal as one of the conservative “maskers in red caps.” Tournon went on to become an early supporter of the Jesuits. See chapter 11, at notes 13–15 and 33. 28 See Defaux’s notes in Marot, OP 1 and 2, passim, and for Marot’s c. 1538 presentation manuscript of a ‘Catholic’ selection of his poems to the then preeminent Constable Anne de Montmorency, see C. A. Mayer, Bibliographie des Œuvres de Clément Marot, I. Manuscrits (Geneva: Droz, 1954), 10–18. The powerful royal councillor, Cardinal Jean de Lorraine (1498–1550), was another favorite target. For the dedications to him by Marot, Salmon Macrin, Visagier, Dolet, Bourbon, Des Périers, and others, see Albert Collignon, “Le mécénat du Cardinal Jean de Lorraine (1498–1550),” Annales de l’Est 24 (1910), 7–175, esp. ch. 2, 91–136. 26

the ‘sons of apollo’ in the service of christ

469

the “Sermon [Bergerie] du bon pasteur et du mauvais,” was made for Anne Boleyn. Given the content, one can take this as a gauge of Marguerite and Anne’s collaboration in promoting evangelical religion.29 Later, Charles de Sainte-Marthe dedicated his highly charged Poesie françoise (1540) to the duchess d’Étampes, at about the same time that Marguerite, whom Sainte-Marthe declared therein to be his champion, was currying her favor. The following year, Marguerite commissioned a sumptuous manuscript of her unedited La coche, ou le débat d’amour, which she gave to the king’s increasingly powerful bedfellow.30 As related below in chapter 11, when Marguerite’s influence began to decline at court during the 1540s, she worked with madame d’Étampes to sway her brother. In sum, the threat of persecution and political considerations shaped every dimension of these evangelical poets’ careers: what, when, and where they published, what they circulated privately in manuscript, to whom they dedicated their works, and how they crafted their public personas. When viewed in light of the reigning climate of persecution and penalties they suffered—it bears repeating—they are revealed as fully engaged actors, even leaders, in the domestic struggle to define right religion and move court and country to embrace it. The phenomenon of their auto-censorship, however, presents a major hermeneutical problem: how do we interpret their poems, especially 29 Entitled Le Pasteur évangélique (London, British Library, Royal MS 16.E.xiii), which was published in the 1540s at Geneva as the Sermon or Bergerie du bon pasteur et du mauvais, this manuscript was discovered by James P. Carley, who notes that, “. . . in his introduction to her copy of Le Pasteur évangélique, Marot (assuming he was the author) specifically linked Henry and Francis, Anne and Margaret [Marguerite].” That Marguerite was involved in the production of such a manuscript can hardly be doubted. For this and Carley’s other important discoveries about Anne’s manuscripts and connections with French evangelicals see his, “‘Her moost lovyng and fryndely brother sendeth gretyng,’ 270. For the text of the Sermon/Bergerie, discussion of the problem of attribution, and Defaux’s characterization of the Sermon as an evangelical summa, see Marot, OP 2, 54–68 and 826–839. 30 See Marguerite de Navarre, La coche, ed. Robert Maréchal (Geneva: Droz, 1971). Marguerite had two manuscripts made of this work in late in 1541 to give as a present to the duchess d’Étampes and possibly one of her relatives. The two manuscripts contained a total of 11 miniatures. The motto in five of these underscored Marguerite’s attempt to flatter the duchess by acknowledging her power: “Plus vous que moy.” BnF, Fichier Picot, MSS microfiche 18 (44) 5/10 & 6/10. See for description of the miniatures, Myra D. Orth, “Manuscrits pour Marguerite,” in Marguerite de Navarre, 1492–1992: Actes du colloque international de Pau (1992), ed. Nicole Cazauran and James Dauphiné (Mont-de-Marsan: Editions InterUniversitaires, 1995), 85–105. Similarly, Marguerite dedicated her Fable du faux cuyder to Francis’s one surviving daughter, Marguerite.

470

chapter ten

their silences or ambiguous and covert utterances? In terms of assessing their engagement and impact in promoting religious renewal, how much more were they implying than they said directly? How much did their readers understand? Again, acknowledging the importance of the context of persecution enables us to confront the difficulty head on. As Gérard Defaux suggests for Marot, threat of heresy accusations, of which writer and reader were fully aware, amplified the nuances of the evangelical poets’ every utterance. In order to get to a good sense of our poets’ religious views and reform aspirations, we need not, and indeed should not, expect to find in their works unequivocal statements like those made by evangelical authors living in the safety and freedom of Protestant lands or the doctors of Faculty of Theology of Paris. The fine distinctions in what evangelical French poets wrote as well as what they left out, especially if it was something a ‘good’ Catholic should have said, can tell us much.31 Still, as we shall see below, the poets did indeed on occasion make trenchant critiques and clear doctrinal statements, whose implications for the amelioration of church and doctrine were clear enough. These exceptional instances indicate what they would have said more fully if they had been free to do so, as well as what their readers would likely have heard implied in their allusive poems.

Polemics and Piety The Sons of Apollo may have been in the service of Christ, but as the title Marot chose for them proclaims, they were renowned in their own day, and have been most appreciated in generations since, for their secular, profane, and, as some have suggested, even irreligious writings. In championing one of these poets, probably Marot shortly after his return from exile, Marguerite held up their value as secular writers to justify their worth: Il me semble que Nostre Seigneur faict tant de graces au Roy et à ses serviteurs, que jamais ne feut plus de besoing de favoriser aux pouhetes [poètes] que maintenant, afin que tant de choses dignes de mémoire

31 For instance, when censuring Dolet’s compositions and publications, the inquisitor Matthieu Ory and the doctors of the Faculty of Theology of Paris were sensitive to both his sins of commission and omission, including his leaving out of the “communionem Sanctorum” in his version of the creed. See Claude Longeon, ed., Documents d’archives sur Étienne Dolet, (Saint-Étienne: Université de Saint-Étienne, 1977), doc. IV, 26–28.

the ‘sons of apollo’ in the service of christ

471

faictes en ce temps, ne soient mises en oubly par fault de ceux qui sont dignes d’escripre si heureuses et vertueuses croniques.32

“Arma virumque cano . . .” intoned the Poet at the beginning of the Aeneid. Just so Marot, Dolet, and others won patronage by celebrating the deeds of Francis I, Montmorency, and the other grandees. They also stimulated and fed their patrons’ and the public’s appetite for the fruits of the Renaissance through their enthusiastic attempt to mine the riches of Greek and Roman authors as well as the Italian ones who guided them to the ancients. In his letter of remission in favor of Dolet in 1543, Francis I held up in his defense his contribution to “bonnes lettres” as both printer and author.33 The Sons of Apollo thus figure among the small army of laurelled champions and foot soldiers who were plundering the literary monuments of Greece and Rome, carrying over classical Greek texts into Latin, and Latin ones into French. Marguerite also directed her circle to translate the glories of their Italian masters into French, including Petrarch’s sonnets, Boccaccio’s Decameron, Castiglione’s Courtier, Ficino’s works on Plato, Plato’s dialogues themselves, and the list goes on.34 So too, as emulators of the innovating Italians, these writers were vitally engaged in helping to retool the French language from top to bottom in order to make it capable of expressing great literature. They improved everything: print type, page layout, orthography, grammar, the principles of translating, methods of textual criticism, and not least, the varieties of verse and prose genres in use. That glorious multi-faceted story has been well and beautifully told by many able scholars. In all of this, the Sons of Apollo contributed significant firsts and early high points in French culture. These accomplishments were worthy ends in themselves, but for the evangelical Sons of Apollo in consideration here, they were not their only, nor necessarily their chief goals. The inculcation of right religion, of a true and living faith, was high on their list of priorities, in many cases it was their principal one. This claim brings us to the center of the debates about the nature of and interconnection in France between the Renaissance and the Reformation in general as well as in the lives of individual authors. Those debates, 32 To Montmorency, circa late 1536 or early 1537, Génin 1, no. 113, 304–405 (Jourda, Répertoire, 647). 33 Longeon, Documents d’archives sur Étienne Dolet, 26–27. 34 For the vogue in emulating the Italians, see Émile Picot, Les français italianisants au XVIe siècle, 2 vols. (Paris: Honoré Champion, 1906).

472

chapter ten

which will not be raised, let alone settled here, will not advance, however, until the religious dimension of these poets’ collective oeuvre is better understood. To that end, the following will demonstrate their self-conscious desire to effect religious change and summarize three interrelated areas of discourse that constitute the core of their religious thought. In the Service of Christ We know that the Sons of Apollo were trying to change the hearts of their readers because they tell us so, though not always directly. In this Marguerite took the lead. In late 1533 or early 1534, she added a new preface to a post-Cop Affair reprint of her Miroir. More boldly than Marot had in his Adolescence or she herself had in previous editions of this work, she tells the reader exactly what fruit to expect.35 Au Lecteur Si vous lisez ceste œuvre toute entiere, Arrestez vous, sans plus, à la matiere: En excussant la Rhyme, et le language, Voyant que c’est d’une femme l’ouvrage: Qui n’a en soy science, ne sçavoir, Fors ung desir, que chascun puisse veoir, Que fait le don de DIEV le Createur, Quand il luy plaist justifier ung cueur: Quel est le cueur d’un homme, quand à soy, Avant qu’il ait receu le don de Foy: Par lequel seul, l’homme a la congnoissance De la Bonté, Sapience, et puissance. Et aussi tost, qu’il congnoit Verité, Son cueur est plein d’amour, et Charité Ainsi bruslant, perd toute vaine crainte: Et fermement espere en DIEV sans faincte. .... Mais vous, Lecteur de bonne conscience,

35 This epistle was added as an extra loose-leaf at the beginning of Augereau third edition of Marguerite’s Miroir, which appeared in late 1533 or early 1534. Its addition, therefore, demonstrates Marguerite’s attempt to the ramp up the evangelical pressure for change during the struggles of 1533–1534. She reused this same programmatic preface to introduce her 1547 collected works, the Marguerites (1547). The text cited here is transcribed from a 1538 Lyon reprint of the Miroir published by “Le Prince” [Pierre de Sainte-Lucie], 92–92. On the Augereau editions, see William Kemp’s penetrating analysis in the article cited in chapter 9, note 134.

the ‘sons of apollo’ in the service of christ

473

Je vous requiers, prenez la patience Lire du tout ceste œuvre, qui n’est rien: Et n’en prenez seulement, que le bien. Mais priez DIEU plein de bonté naïve, Qu’en vostre cueur il plante la foy vive. [Final line]

Do not even bother with the artistic merit of the poetry, she says modestly, it is only by the hand of a woman. She states her goal clearly: she wants to aid the reader in developing a “living faith,” that faith which, according to her definition, is a gift from God that enlightens the mind with truth and fills the heart with love and charity, thus leading the believer to put away all fear and instead acquire firm hope of salvation. Many Sons of Apollo shared Marguerite’s desire that their works would give religious edification. In the preface to Gargantua (1534) Rabelais specifically invites the reader to search for the ‘marrow’ of his meaning hidden under his “Pythagorean symbols.” If they do, they will find revealed “de tresaultz sacrements et mysteres horrificques, tant en ce que concerne nostre religion que aussi l’estat politicq et vie oeconomicque.”36 He does not signal there what lessons will be learned, but he often puts his meaning into plain view in the text, for instance, in Gargantua’s interpretation of the prophetic riddle discussed at the close of the work: Ce n’est pas de maintenant que les gents reduictz à la creance Evangelicque sont persecutez; mais bien heureux est celluy qui ne sera scandalizé et qui toujours tendra au but, au blanc que Dieu, par son cher Enfant, nous a prefix, sans par ses affections charnelles estre distraict ny diverty.37

His interlocutor, Goderan, rejects the notion that the enigma is an ancient prediction that those being persecuted for their evangelical beliefs in their day (de maintenant) will be blessed if they hold to their target Christ. Instead he proposes that it is no more than an allegory about a tennis match. Rabelais’s obfuscation via Goderan was a transparent defense mechanism. Other Sons of Apollo were more bold. In launching his poetry, Sainte-Marthe signals in the first poem of his Poesie françoise that he hopes his verse will glorify God, and then in the very next one “Au

36 Gargantua, ed. M. A. Screech, TLF 163 (Geneva: Droz, 1970), Prologue, 14, ll. 84–86. 37 Gargantua, ch. 56, 312–313, ll. 114–119.

474

chapter ten

Roy treschrestien,” in what amounts to a preemptive apology should his religious verse offend—one reminiscent of Calvin’s in his dedicatory epistle to Francis I at the head of the 1536 Institutes—he declares that he reserves his soul to Christ and his body to the king.38 Whether expressed clearly in their prefaces or not, the intent of Sons of Apollo to edify and inculcate true belief and piety is plainly evident in the texts themselves. Before turning to describe their creed and piety, two words need to be said about what they could and could not say. The first point has to do with polemics: since like other evangelicals their beliefs dissented from those of the church, could they, should they denounce it and call for its reform? Poets, even the king’s sister, and most of their readers obviously did not enjoy the ius reformandi, that is, the right or legitimate power to reform the church or the faith. The medieval church had stipulated that only the pope or, failing him, the high clergy enjoyed that right. Secular lords could and should help, but they did not enjoy independent authority to renew the church. All Protestants, except for those thereby called radicals, believed that, when the church became corrupt, God’s ‘magistrates’ did have such authority. Yet, anyone in France believing that the king had such power independent of the clergy simply could not say so overtly because of persecution. The king, as a good son of the church, had not claimed such power. To have called on him to take up such a burden would have been manifest heresy. Evidence abounds, however, that even if these evangelical poets did not say so openly, they had abandoned allegiance to Rome as well as commitment to the idea that the pope was the spiritual head of the church with the power to define orthodoxy, reform the church, or determine by the power of the keys whose sins should be forgiven or retained. Moreover, we see that they had placed their hopes for reform in the king. Some clearly did believe, like Luther, that the papacy was thoroughly vitiated, even a thing of the Devil, the Antichrist. Bourbon wrote as much, but had to stifle his views. Beyond his thinly veiled laudatio of Luther in the epigram Hercules germanicus, quoted at the head of chapter 7, in another in the 1529/1530 Epigrammata, Bourbon blasts the “Canons of the Roman Antichrist:” Canones Antichriston ton Romanion: “What are all these canons but theft and manifest tyranny,

38 “À CHRIST mon DIEV, mon Ame je reserve, / À toy mon Roy, j’abandonne ma vie.” Poesie francoise, 7–8.

the ‘sons of apollo’ in the service of christ

475

the snares of priests and madness of the pontiffs?”39 He asserts in a poem titled “Sancta ecclesia pauper est” that the holy church has been deserted, implying that the pope has abdicated his responsibilities, and asserts that it can have no other head but Christ.40 In his coq-àl’ânes, Marot exhibits similar views. In each one, he mentions Rome and the Antichrist, and, if only obliquely, connects the two by making disparaging reference to things such as the tradition of kissing the pope’s slipper, which the Wittenberg Reformers had held up in the influential Passional Chrisi und Antichristi (1521) as manifest signs of the papacy’s thorough corruption.41 Through a not-so-veiled allegory, Rabelais rejected the papacy and its pretensions to be a (quasi) God on earth in the Quart livre.42 As we will see in chapter 11, Marguerite and her allies at court could call the pope “the devil” in the context of trying to forge a religious and political union with England. Whatever they meant exactly by these terms, such courtiers had severed their private allegiance to Rome as spiritual head of the church. As Johann Sturm related to Martin Bucer in the epigraph at the head of chapter 9, evangelicals had placed their hope for reform not in the pope but on the king’s eventual change of heart. One of the essential findings of the present study is that from the early 1520s until the king’s death, Marguerite and her network consistently attempted to sway Francis to effect a reform of the church, with or without the pope.43 If Marguerite and the Sons of Apollo did not openly call for the pope or Rome to be rejected, or call on Francis I specifically to reform 39 Canones Antichriston ton Romanion [in Greek characters]: “Tot canones qui sunt, nisi fraus et aperta tyrannis? / Retia scribarum, pontificumque furor?” Epigrammata, fol. 34v. 40 “Sancta ecclesia pauper est, et unicum habet caput, nempe Christum, ex graeco suo: Infelix, humilis, deserta, ecclesia sancta: / Haec praeter Christum nescit habere caput.” Epigrammata, fol. fol. 39r. All of these Bourbon suppressed in his 1533 Nugae. 41 For the content and European-wide impact of the Passionale, see Robert Scribner, For the Sake of the Simple Folk: Popular Propaganda for the German Reformation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), esp. ch. 6, “Antichrist and the World Turned Upside-Down,” 148–189. 42 See M. A. Screech, L’évangélisme de Rabelais: Aspects de la satire religieuse au XVIe siècle, Études rabelaisiennes 2 (Geneva: Droz, 1959), ch. 2. 43 In his suppressed Epigrammata, Nicolas Bourbon expressed his strong hope that, since the king was championing the new learning, “true religion would soon to be reborn:” “Quin et regem ipsum aiunt non mediocriter favere literis ac literatis, cum eoque primores huius florentissimi regni: Deo immortali laus et gratiae. Nam spes est fore, ut renatis politioribus literis, mox et ipsa vera religio renascatur. Boni etenim mores, ex bonis literis proficiscuntur.” Letter to Dionysius Coronaeus, from Valentiae, 1 August 1528, fol. LXIXr.

476

chapter ten

the church, it was because they could not do so. Their silence in this regard cannot be viewed as evidence that, like Erasmus or Thomas More, though critical of the church, they ultimately could not abide severing its unity, defined as union with Rome, or abandon the papacy, however much they might despise individual popes. Though severely critical of the clergy and even individual popes, good Catholic poets, such as Jean Bouchet, François Sagon, and Antoine Du Saix, made sure to affirm their ultimate adherence to Rome and traditional practices.44 Marguerite and the Sons of Apollo did not. What evangelical poets could and did do was criticize the clergy by making ad hominem attacks on individual clerics and less frequently on the orders in general, as well as the specific doctrines they espoused. Of course, such attacks on fat monks, lewd friars, and money-grubbing priests joined a chorus of such invective intoned with increasing frequency during the late Middle Ages and carried to new highs and lows by humanists.45 The Sons of Apollo added quite a few new figures to the rogues’ gallery. In itself, such criticism of the clergy was certainly not tantamount to a call to break with the church or to abolish the religious orders, as evangelicals in the Empire did. Bourbon came closest to doing so in a mere two-line quip: Sectae Monachorum: “The sects of Monks: What author created the different sects of monks? I do not

44 On Jean Bouchet see Jennifer Britnell’s thorough and stimulating study of a poet who was both orthodox and very critical of the church, Jean Bouchet (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press for the University of Durham, 1986). For an example of Sagon’s profession of orthodoxy, see note 12. For Du Saix defense of orthodoxy, see, for instance, his poems: “L’arrest de l’esglise catholique et vraye Chrestienne,” in which he affirms the real presence in the Eucharist, and “La devotion de frere Claude Monachon,” in which he lauds Mary as intercessor “Vierge sacrée, esleue avant tout temps, / Qui est ‘espoir, aprez Dieu, que j’attens / par moyen de divine alliance / Je te supplie en celle confiance / . . .” in Du Saix, Petitz fatras d’ung apprentis, surnommé l’esperonnier de discipline (Lyon: Claude Nourry, 1532; repr. Lyon: Olivier Arnoullet, 1538), fols. 4v–5r in the 1538 edition. On this work and Du Saix’s possible connections with Rabelais, see William Kemp, “Lesperon de discipline d’Antoine Du Saix (1532) et l’imprimeur de Pantagruel, Claude Nourry dit ‘Le Prince,’” Études rabelaisiennes 39 (2001), 23–37. 45 On the near ubiquitous phenomenon of anticlericalism and its many varieties in late medieval and sixteenth-century Europe, consult the forty articles in Peter A. Dykema and Heiko A. Oberman, eds., Anticlericalism in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe, SMRT 51 (Leiden: Brill, 1993). Of course, many of the most severe critics were those in orders. For a full discussion of “antimonachism” in France, see Jean-Marie Le Gall, Les moines, 547–590. Drawing on a set of sources—including Marguerite’s late unpublished work, the Heptaméron—which complement those studied here, he similarly argues that evangelicals targeted the false soteriology of mendicants and monks and desired a radical reformation of monasticism, if not its abolition.

the ‘sons of apollo’ in the service of christ

477

know, but I believe he had evil intentions.”46 So too, he attacked the greed and incompetency of the clergy, inveighing “Against the little sacrificers (sacrificulos) of our time,” as well as against those priests who mutter their prayers, just like obscene (turpis) monkeys.47 But Boubon buried those poems. Still, it was thoroughly disingenuous of Dolet to argue, as quoted above, that Marot and by implication the rest of the Sons of Apollo, did not slander individuals. By either name or distinguishing features, these poets vilified specific enemies time and again, often in the grossest terms. Noël Beda was a favorite target.48 For his part, like Rabelais before him, Dolet ridiculed the archconservative syndic’s physique, mocking him as a hunchback in his 1538 Carminum libri quatuor.49 So too, in his poems, Marot took aim at specific figures throughout his career, as in De frere André Cordelier.50 Cy gist, qui assez mal preschoit, Par ces femmes tant regretté, Frere André qui les chevauchoit Comme ung grand Asne desbaté.

One could multiply the examples of their attack on Paris theologians, the clergy, and other standard-bearers of orthodoxy, like Sagon.51 Such 46 “Quis varias sectas monachorum invenerit autor? / Nescio, sed genium credo fuisse malum,” Epigrammata, fol. 14r. And again “In monachos nostris temporis: Hac monachi passim sumptis atque cucullis: / Sese immortaleis semideosque putant . . .,” Epigrammata, fol. 15r. 47 “In sacrificulos nostri temporis: Sacrificus modios precularum murmurat octo: / Non aliter turpis simia labra movet,” Epigrammata, fol. 15v. 48 Marot took ridiculed Beda in print in 1533 and, possibly, in another poem attributed to him, the “Grup,” which remained in manuscript. See Marot, OP 2, 291 and 738, ll. 38–41. In 1537, Visagier savaged Beda five times, see note 8. In the 1538 Nugae, Nicolas Bourbon also blasted him, though not by name, as an opponent of the new learning, rather than as the scourge of evangelicals: “In quempiam gibbosum, qui bonas literas earumque cultores incestabatur.” See Nicolas Bourbon, Les bagatelles de Nicolas Bourbon, ed. V.-L. Saulnier (Paris: Jacques Haumont, 1945), 62. 49 “In Bedam Gibbosum, et strumosum, Exulem,” Carminum libri quatuor, 49. 50 Marot, OP 1, 105. 51 Leaving aside his coq-à-l’asnes and lengthier polemical pieces, including those from his quarrel with Sagon, Marot spent a good deal of energy mocking individual figures, see Marot, OP 1, 91, 103, 104, 105, 112, 160, and Marot, OP 2, 73, 226, 236, 288, 290–292, 301, 308, 324, 327, 330, 351, and 710, and, less frequently (for obvious reasons) championing their victims, as in the “L’epistre de Barquin [Berquin],” Marot, OP 2, 71–73. Much less prolific, Victor Brodeau took a gentle pot shot at two Franciscans, see his Poésies, ed. Hilary M. Tomlinson TLF 312 (Geneva: Droz, 1982), 121. Bonaventure Des Périers took aim at two Franciscans and two Dominicans in his Recueil, 173–174. Despite claiming to have restrained himself when responding to

478

chapter ten

vilification was but the flip side of their positive exaltation of their fellow poets and patrons. Their verse pro et contra projected into public view the personas of those who stood on either side of the debate over evangelical doctrines. While their attacks on the clergy did not constitute in themselves a call for reform of the church, they did serve to ridicule the self-declared defenders of the church, like Beda and Sagon, thereby undermining their authority and calling into question their conservative beliefs. This was the extent to which their ‘Reformation’ polemics could go. The second limiting factor on their religious discourse was the fact that most poets were not licensed theologians. It was not their office to define or debate doctrine.52 Even if they were so equipped and would have been allowed to attempt it, the genres in which they wrote were not suitable for the cut and thrust of debate or the exegesis of biblical texts. What they could express and did attempt to inculcate through meditations on the Psalms and other passages of Scripture was personal reformation: an awakening, as Marguerite described it in her Miroir preface, of true faith. In so doing, the Sons of Apollo articulated certain basic, theological principles, but nothing like a theological system. Indeed, it would have been remarkable if they had, for there were very few systematic expositions of evangelical doctrine for them to draw on. Lefèvre d’Étaples had not produced one; few reformers in the Empire had. What French evangelicals could consult and translate

adversaries, “Dieu a deffendu / Pour se venger, dicts conteumelieux. / . . . Je sens aussi, que telle nation, est en tout cas, indigne de ma plume,” Poesie francoise, 15, SainteMarthe frequently savaged the clergy, see Poesie francoise, 19, 27– 28, 46–47, 60, 64, 67–68, 71, 87, 95, 101, 162–163, and for his lengthiest anticlerical polemic, his one coq-à-l’asne, 141–145. 52 In a fine study, the regretted Carol Thysell (d. 2001), raised a provocative question, first posed by Roland Bainton: “Why did women of the sixteenth century not write systematic theology?” Were they prevented or simply not interested? She answered that, at least one, Marguerite, certainly was interested and succeed in writing as a theologian, particularly about the nature of humanity (religious anthropology) in her prose work, the Heptaméron. The queen of Navarre overcame gender prohibitions, Thysell sought to show, by writing in a literary genre and employing strategic rhetorical techniques in order to articulate her theological positions. If we lift our sights from Marguerite, Thysell’s thesis, which has many merits, points to an even more basic question: How was it possible for any evangelical living in early sixteenth-century France to publish a theological treatise, be it systematic or otherwise? The point is that the laity, whether male or female, could not. See Carol Thysell, The Pleasure of Discernment: Marguerite de Navarre as Theologian, Oxford Studies in Historical Thought (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).

the ‘sons of apollo’ in the service of christ

479

into expressions of piety were the catechetical expositions of the Ten Commandments, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Creed, as well as treatises on individual issues like penance, extracts and commentaries on key passages of the Bible, and the Bible itself in translation, all of which abounded in the French vernacular. Consequently, what French evangelical poets offered to the public was not a well-rounded presentation of true doctrine or the changes that were required of the church. They expressed the guiding principles of a deep and rightly ‘centered’ piety. More, they provided a variety of devotional texts, meditations, and prayers to aid in the development of such piety. Their principles certainly implied the need for the reform of religion, but they did not opine about the ways and means to achieve it. They were chiefly targeting personal transformation, not institutional reformation. In this they played their small part in what Berndt Hamm has helpfully identified as a great wave of “the practical realization of religion . . . in such a way that daily life is formed and informed by it,” through a “normative centering,” or concentration, of piety on certain key concepts and religious figures.53 An initial survey of French evangelical poets’ works, which is by no means complete, indicates that, following the German reformers, their piety intensified this trend in religious centering to the point that they too focused exclusively on Christ to the exclusion of Mary and other saints who had performed roles as sympathetic helpmates in late medieval piety. Three interlocking discursive fields, each one comprising a coherent set of theological principles and practical issues, characterized the core of French evangelical poets’ thought. Each domain is governed conceptually by one of the theological virtues: faith, charity/love, and hope. As did Marguerite in her prefatory epistle to the Miroir, cited above, the poets frequently used this trinity of virtues as a basis from which to express the fundamentals of true religion. The following overview will

53 Berndt Hamm as quoted by John M. Frymire in his very helpful introduction to the conceptual richness of Hamm’s approach to late medieval and Reformation era religion: Berndt Hamm, “Normative Centering in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries: Observations on Religiosity, Theology, and Iconology,” trans. John M. Frymire, Journal of Early Modern History 3 (1999), 307–354, 308 for quotation, and especially 351–354 for Hamm’s assessment of the continuities and discontinuities between medieval Catholic and Protestant piety.

480

chapter ten

take as a comparative baseline the rich and neglected Poesie francoise (1540) of Charles de Sainte-Marthe, one of the few poets who did have formal theological training.54 Life-Giving Faith At the core of all these poets’ religious expression is the basic evangelical belief that faith in Christ alone saves. They had learned this understanding of justification and salvation as an extraneous gift given to sinners apart from their works and merits from the teachings of Lefèvre d’Étaples and the German reformers.55 On this most basic of theological issues, the matter of how one is saved, they dissented from the official position of the medieval church. Evangelicals believed the gift of faith to be an unmerited and fully efficacious cause of salvation. For Catholic theologians, faith was indeed undeserved, but they deemed it only as an initial gift, as a seed which needed to be ‘formed,’ that is, enlivened, matured, and worked out through deeds of charity. These would merit the sinner’s salvation when augmented to some lesser or greater extent by further infusions of God’s grace. However fine the distinctions drawn between these doctrinal positions or the similarity of the terms and formulations used to make them—such as the need for having a living faith (vive foi) used by adherents on both sides—their disagreement about justification, God’s all or nothing role in salvation, was a fundamental dividing line that might be obscured but not erased.56

54 Sainte-Marthe also studied law. Marguerite protected and employed him from sometime in the late 1530s through the rest of his career. He was an officer in the duchies of Beaumont and her Alençon. Caroline Ruutz-Rees provides the only modern overview of Sainte-Marthe’s life and works. She is chiefly concerned with him as a literary figure, not with his role in reform. See her Charles de Sainte-Marthe (1512–1555) (New York: Columbia University Press, 1910; repr. New York: AMS Press, 1966). Further biographical information is provided by: J. J. Hémardinquer, “Les prisons d’un poète: Charles de Sainte-Marthe (1537–1543),” BHR 20 (1958), 177–183; George T. Diller, “Puy-Herbualt, Marot et Charles de Sainte-Marthe,” Humanisme et Renaissance 20 (1938), 143–147; William Monter, Judging the French Reformation, 92 and 158–159 for important references on Sainte-Marthe’s imprisonment in 1541 in the Dauphiné and later role in obstructing heresy investigations at Alençon; Robert, “Les débuts du protestantisme à Alençon,” and Despierres, “L’imprimerie à Alençon de 1529 à 1575,” 22, n. 6, for further archival evidence about his career in Alençon. 55 For the theology of Lefèvre and the Meaux group and its relationship to the German reformers see the discussion and literature cited in chapters 4–6 of the present study. 56 Gary Ferguson notes perceptively that both reforming Catholic and evangelical

the ‘sons of apollo’ in the service of christ

481

The one sharply tongued poet among the Sons of Apollo, Nicolas Bourbon, articulated the heart of evangelical thought in his Epigrammata, in poems such as, Fides: “Faith: Faith is to believe with sincere heart in the promises of Christ. This faith alone can make us justified.”57 The very word order of the second line emphasizes the Lutheran theme of faith alone: Ista potest iustos reddere sola fides. From faith, Bourbon turns to the issue of works in the poem Opera quae non sunt ex fide: “Works which are not done in faith: If in acting you do not have true faith, then whatever you do is nothing but sin.”58 Bourbon pursues such affirmations of solafideist soteriology in other poems such as Caro et spiritus apud Paulum, “The flesh and the spirit according to Paul.” The Sons of Apollo’s poems, while short on precise formulations of justification by faith alone, are nevertheless filled with expressions of the sort of Christocentrism that typically goes with it. Such concentration, or to use Hamm’s term, centering on Christ to the exclusion of all else, be it Mary, the saints, or the value of their own efforts, is a leading indicator of their theological orientation. Like Sainte-Marthe, they all invoke Christ and laud him as the sole cause of salvation and sole mediator between humans and God the Father. Jesus, speaking from the cross, tells Sainte-Marthe’s readers that it is so: . . . seul suis ton saulvement, Seul de tes maulx ay fait purgation: ....

poets could used the same lexicon and terms, such as vive foi, imprecisely and often with different meanings. He argues that, Marguerite, in particular, moved away from the theological position that charity gives form to faith, a view which mediates Catholic and Protestant views about the relationship of works to faith, to one in which “she gives the impression that works are not so much a test of faith, of which they are an integral and necessary part, as the work of Christ himself in the life of the believer . . . ‘vive foy’ is used more and more to signify not faith lived out in works, but trust in God or foiconfiance.” See his third chapter, “The Consecration of Formulae and the Theological Virtues,” in Mirroring Belief: Marguerite de Navarre’s devotional poetry (Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press, 1992), 147–178, esp. 168–177, quotation on 169. Isabelle Garnier-Mathez has reached similar conclusions about the evangelicals’ thought on vive foi and a number of other central concepts in her penetrating study of their religious lexicon, particularly their use of adjectives to give programmatic force to their statements. She detects a greater level of consistency and precision in those texts than Ferguson. See her L’épithète et la connivence: Écriture concertée chez les Évangéliques français (1523–1534), THR 154 (Geneva: Droz, 2005). 57 “Fides: Pectore syncero promissis credere Christi / Ista potest iustos reddere sola fides” Epigrammata, fol. 5r. 58 Opera quae non sunt ex fide: Si desit tibi vera fides, in rebus agundis, / Nil nisi peccatum quod facis, esse potest,” Epigrammata, fol. 19r; and ibid. for the next poem.

482

chapter ten Et en [tes maulx] iceulx metz sur moy ta fiance, En attendant ma promesse certaine, Vien croict à moy sans avoir defiance. Car de tout bien je suis source et fontaine.59

Similarly, as related above, Fontaine’s unedited collection of poems, the Epistres, is in essence one long meditation on Christ and his solely salvific sacrifice. So too, Caroli and Brodeau’s poetic works were thoroughly Christocentric in this evangelical vein. Marguerite focuses many of her compositions on the life, death, and victory of the savior of humankind. Marot expressed the same views of Christ as sole mediator between God and man, which elicited further echoes by the likes of Barthelemy Aneau.60 Des Périers tells his reader that Christ is “Lequel doit estre, et est, ton esperance, / Ton seul appuy, et ta ferme asseurance.”61 From this theological core they go on to articulate a number of second order doctrines: faith alone saves (not works), the saints and Mary are exemplars (not intercessors), confession of sin is to be directed to God (not the priest), remission of sins is granted by God (not the church or priest), the gospel of Christ in the Scriptures is the only source of true doctrine (not the church too), the sacraments are means by which God distributes his grace (not meritorious works performed by humans), and, finally, charity is the sign of a true or living faith (not its form, source or cause). Evangelical poets express all of these basic positive notions, which implied by failing to mention them a criticism of traditional medieval Catholic doctrines. For Sainte-Marthe, Mary is an exemplar not an intercessor. He has the Queen of Heaven tells his readers that this is so: Vierge j’estois, Vierge fuz tousjours pure, Ancelle, fille, et Mere ensemblement De mon cher Filz, par mon gouvernement

59

“Jesuchrist, estant en Croix, parle à un chascun Chrestien,” Poesie francoise, 73. For two examples of Marot’s meditations on Christ, his salvific role, and the need for faith in him alone, see Marot, OP 1, 124; OP 2, 713, esp. ll. 12–22. Aneau proclaims that he had been inspired by Marot in, “Noel en imitation de C. Marot, sur la lettre, et le chant de la chanson lay le desir content tesmoignant l’esperance des mortelz contentée, par plenitude de grace envoyée de Dieu par son filz Jesuchrist conceu du sainct esprit: et né de la Vierge.” See Chant natal contenant sept noelz, ung chant Pastoural, et ung chant Royal, avec ung Mystere de la Nativité, par personages (Lyon: Sebastien Gryphe, 1539), b1r–b2r. 61 In Des Périers, Prognostication des prognostications, reprinted in Recueil, 157. 60

the ‘sons of apollo’ in the service of christ

483

Servant d’exemple, à tout Chrestien fidelle, Quiconques dit out escript aultrement, Est reprove, meschant, et infidelle.

What appears to be a defense of the cult of Mary really diminishes traditional piety towards her by neglecting to have her claim any power over her son as intercessor. That idea is alluded to in her reference to “mon gouvernement,” but subverted to mean that her mothering only serves as an “exemple, à tout Chrestien fidelle.” Anyone saying otherwise, or, as implied, claiming more power for her than she claims in his poem, is wrong and unfaithful. Marot, Dolet, and Des Périers all composed poems in honor of the Virgin. Even in providing a French translation of the Ave Maria in Marguerite’s 1531 Miroir, however, one sees that the poets limited themselves to expressing great respect for Mary but refused to adopt the traditional devotion to her as a means to access God’s favor or blessing.62 When discussing the Eucharist, Sainte-Marthe similarly reworks traditional doctrines. He plays dangerously with the binary categories of accidents and substance, sign (gaige) and flesh, as well as faith and the physical eating of the sacrament in order to emphasize that the wafer contains in it the “gaige” of eternal salvation, which one only apprehends in the heart and truly “tastes” through faith, not through the carnal eating of it. It is “nourishment for the soul:” Nature alors paravant comme ethique A de ce pain senty soullaigement, Et puis cogneu sans y faire replique,

62 For Dolet’s “Ad Salmonium Macrinum. De laudibus Virginis Mariae,” see, Carminum libri quatuor, 145; Des Périers, Recueil, 90–91; and Marot, OP 1, 127 and 151; OP 2, 763. Salmon Macrin did invoke Mary’s aid against the Turk, “. . . defende, Regina, obsecramus.” He was the most conservative of the Sons of Apollo, who returned to more orthodox views after a brief evangelical period in the early 1530s. Still, under the influence of the evangelicals with whom he traveled, Christocentrism seems to have remained a dominant feature of his faith. See Georges Soubeille’s introduction to Salmon’s life and thought as well as Salmon’s ode “Ad Virginem Mariam,” in Jean Salmon Macrin, Épithalames & Odes, ed. Georges Soubeille, Textes de la Renaissance 20 (Paris: Honoré Champion, 1998), 103–126 and 286–289. The Sons of Apollo’s approach to Mary differs fundamentally from that of conservatives exemplified the Carmelite, Battista Spagnuoli’s La parthenice Mariane, which Jacques de Mortières translated and offered to Marguerite in 1523, and the work of Tristan de Lescagne, who railed against those who had diminished the cult of Mary in his Disputation entre homme et Raison composée nouvellement à l’honneur de la glorieuse Vierge Marie, mere de Dieu (Paris: Denis Janot and Pierre Sergent, [c. 1535]).

484

chapter ten Ung grand secret dessoubs ce sacrement, Car il luy est un seur et reiche gaige, De prendre part au Celeste heritaige, Si par Foy veult son Cueur y arrester, Et l’arrestant, par Foy plus le gouster, Que par la Chair, qui le contraire clame, Car on ne peut de ceste chaire taster Le divin pain, nourriture de l’Ame.63

Sidestepping the contentious issue of the nature of the real presence in the sacrament, he stresses in evangelical fashion its function, which takes effect through faith, not the mere performance of the rite.64 In another poem, Sainte-Marthe treats Scripture, the “Holy Bible,” as a quasi-sacrament, which provides true nourishment, calling it “the incorruptible bread and delectable cup” that feeds the soul “when the soul eats it.” It alone gives sure knowledge of Christ as savior. He calls on his brothers, therefore, to read and meditate on the Scriptures:65 Or lisons donc l’Escripture tant belle, Or recepvons ceste bonne novelle, Que par la Foy, Jesus nous renouvelle. Par la Foy fait, Que nostre Esprit, se nourrit et reffect, Que le lyen de peché, est deffaict. C’est le vray bien, et le seul bien perfaict, Qu’il fault avoir.

63 “Balade double, contenant la promesse de CHRIST, sa Nativite, Passion, Resurrection, et precieux sacrament de son Corps, icy à nous delaissé pour gaige de Salut,” Poesie francoise, 110–112, ll. 12–22. 64 Most of the Sons of Apollo hint at the Eucharist in their Christological poems, but with little doctrinal precision about its proper form or actual function, emphasizing only its effects. In “Victime (sic) pascali laudes,” Des Périers begins by invoking the setting of the Mass, with Christians gathered to “chanter digne louenge au Paschal sacrifice,” but passes on quickly to discuss the victory over sin achieved by the lamb’s sacrifice and then calls Mary Magdalene to witness to the emptying of the tomb and Christ’s resurrection. Des Périers leads readers to the Mass but only has them commune with its meaning. He does not exhort them to adore the host as many traditional treatises on the Mass did. See Des Périers, Recueil, 87–89. 65 “Nourrisssez la [l’âme] du pain incorruptible: / C’est l’escript sainct, c’est la sacrée Bible, / Si a cela elle est un coup delectible, / Si elle en mange.” For this quotation and the following one see Sainte-Marthe’s “Elegie du vray bien, et nourriture de l’Ame,” Poesie francoise, 213–214. The call to read the Scriptures was implicit in these poets’ frequent citing of Scripture and announcements that certain poems are meditations on specific biblical passages. Marot and his emulators called for the reading of Scripture: “Prenons pourtant, sans danger, le sainct Livre, / De JESUS CHRIST pour nostre instruction / Entre les mains: car, au poix de la livre, / Un monde vault de reprobation. / Là nous oyrons icelle Sapience / . . .” in “Chant royal: La mort du Juste, et du Pescheur,” Marot, OP 2, 713–714, ll. 34–38.

the ‘sons of apollo’ in the service of christ

485

Just as he was more programmatic in his positive statements on doctrine, so too Sainte-Marthe goes further than his brother poets in his criticism of the clergy. He declares that they are not simply debauched and derelict in their spiritual duty, but also fundamentally deceived by false doctrines of salvation. That was the root cause of their utter dissipation. For instance, he vilified the traditional clergy in the figure of a deceased Franciscan who had preached that his own works were sufficient to merit salvation (de condigno) without grace.66 In a second poem, SainteMarthe depicts this monk as having the audacity to try to argue his case post mortem with Christ based on the authority of Duns Scotus.67 It is a biting little satire. In other invectives against mendicants, he attacks one hypocrite (caphard) for preaching lies, another “frere daemonique” for contradicting Scripture and seeking to condemn those good folk (gentz de bien), who understand the gospel correctly, a third brother “L. de Claveyson” for thinking his frock would cover his ill deeds—“the habit does not make the monk”—and all such sophists for leading the people astray from Christ and his truth with their false doctrines.68 It is a wonder that his Poesie francoise was not censured.69 Persecution may explain why few poets emulated Sainte-Marthe in making such theologically-driven condemnations of the clergy. It also seems, however, that these poets’ very notion of true faith as a living faith ( foi vive), a faith opened or made operative through charity by nurturing the good of others, led them to accentuate its positive, lived dimension. They emphasized and celebrated charity as the natural outcome of a true faith. As Sainte-Marthe put it, linking all three theological virtues together:

66 “Epitaphe d’un Cordelier, lequel, en sa vie, avoit tousjours presché, que ses merites estoient suffisants à le saulver, sans la Grace de Dieu,” “[Il] A heu pouvoir par ses Oeuvres perfaire, / Ce que n’ont eu les Apostres jadis. / O’ benoist froc, qui a peu le bien faire, / De meriter sans Grace, Paradis.” Poesie francoise, 46–47. 67 “A un du pareil ordre [Franciscan], qui en preschant, donnà la Foy au Diable.” “Grandement est Sathan à toy tenu, / De quoy tu as son party soubstenu / Contre IESVS, par ta folle hardiesse. / IESVS n’a rien que la Foy retenu, / Par laquelle est son regne maintenu, / Et faicte aux siens de Justice promesse. / Quant tu as veu qu’on a par son addresse / Cogneu l’abus de toute Hypocrisie, / Tu l’as donnée au Diable en frenaisie, / Cuiddant ainsy nous priver de tel bien: / Mais recognois ta folle fantaisie, / Donner ne peux la chose ou tu n’as rien.” Poesie francoise, 46. 68 Poesie francoise, 162–163, 27–28, 60, and 95–96 respectively 69 Sainte-Marthe’s In Psalmum nonagesimum [Paris 1550] and another work attributed to him falsely, De sacramentis fidei et unionis christianae, which is really a component part of Theodorus Bibliander’s De summa Trinitate, were put on the 1556 Index. See Bujanda, Index de l’Université de Paris, 246–248.

486

chapter ten Foy sans Amour, ne peut estre Foy vive, Car vive Foy oeuvre par Charité. Et de ces deux, Esperance derive, Qui nous conduit à vivre en purité. Nous esperons ce que la Verité Nous a promis en croyant, par ainsy Accomplissons ce qu’il commande aussy, C’est d’avoir tout (comme Freres) commun Par Charité. Donc je metz par cecy. Foy, Charité, et Esperance en un.70

Echoing the same theme expressed in the rondeau quoted at the head of chapter 7, “En aymant Dieu de cueur entierement,” which was given prominent place in one of Marguerite’s manuscripts, faith leads to charity, the virtue that puts human relationships on the right moral footing, binding true believers in brotherhood. Charity and Love for Neighbor Charity is the social virtue: the love of God that unites Christians to their neighbors. Under the terms charity or love, in their different meanings, fall a set of topics the Sons of Apollo focused on perhaps more than any other: love between a couple, marriage, sex, chastity, infidelity, clerical celibacy, Neoplatonic love, courtly love, morality, charitable giving, friendship, sworn friendship (alliance), family life, the body, and the querelle des femmes. The religious poems we have been considering so far are scattered in these poets’ works in a sea of such poems, some of them radically secular in nature, including ones which, if not pornographic, are brazenly erotic, such as Marot’s “De Robin et Catin.”71 Both Calvin and “Puritan” Catholic divines deemed such works to be immoral. For modern people, the effect of seeing secular and religious poems cheek by jowl can be jarring.72 70 Poesie francoise, 44. In other passages, Sainte-Marthe appears to emphasize the role of charity in traditional fashion as that which gives form and being to faith, hence leading to good works, as in “Qu’on cognoist la vive et vraye Foy par les Œuvres,” “Mais la Foy vive est cogneue à l’Ouvraige, / Et le Fidele en cela certifie. / Car ayme Dieu d’un tresardent couraige, / Puis sons Prochain, ce qui le justifie.” Yet, here and elsewhere, he emphasizes charity as the sign or product of true faith, not as the enabling source that leads to life-giving faith. 71 Marot, OP 2, 33. 72 Whence the title and main theme of Lucien Febvre’s intriguing study of Marguerite’s Heptaméron: Amour sacré, amour profane: Autour de l’Heptaméron (Paris: Gallimard, 1944).

the ‘sons of apollo’ in the service of christ

487

The Sons of Apollo were fully engaged, often innovators in the field of love poetry. Marot’s early poem, the Temple de Cupido, an allegory of secular love reinterpreted as a figure of sacred love, Rabelais’s ideal abbey of Thélème in Gargantua, where male and female initiates live in the same compound and marry if they like, the vogue for poetic praise for the female body, the blasons de corps féminin, launched by Marot with his praise of the beau tétin,73 the burgeoning interest in assessing the theory of Neoplatonic love by Marguerite and other poets,74 and her last great work, the Heptaméron, are but some of the highlights of this polyvalent, often ribald field of literature. Its interest is great; the scholarship on it vast. For the purposes of this study’s concern with the ‘Reformation’ dimension of these poets, we will limit ourselves to three basic observations. First, their poetry engaged directly with the real social world that was at almost every turn out of step with the church’s teachings on celibacy, marriage, and human sexuality. The king had his official mistresses and traveling harem, La bande de joyeuses dames, prelates had their lady loves, and so on down to the ‘poets’ like the friar turned monk, Rabelais, who, unexceptionally for men in orders, had a mistress and illegitimate children, and Marot, who though married, professed his love, to a series of women other than his wife. Second, many evangelical poets, nevertheless, exhibit a strong interest in celebrating pure relationships and modeling correct ethical behavior. Sainte-Marthe proclaimed his chaste and irreproachable love for Beringue in a dozen and half poems, the most frequent subject in his

73 Marot’s emulator, Eustorg de Beaulieu, a future Reformed minister, offered up among his prayers and pious poems in the Divers rapportz his appreciation of women’s nez, joue, dents, langue, voix, cul, pet, and vesse! 74 Helpful orientation to the interest in Neoplatonism that was emerging circa 1540 in the poetic circles connected to Marguerite can be found in Robert Cottrell, The Grammar of Silence: A Reading of Marguerite de Navarre’s Poetry (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1986), ch. 8 “The Emblematic Mode,” 221 ff. Cottrell argues that in Marguerite’s later poetry she explored, but ultimately rejected, the Neoplatonic notion that human love could serve as an inferior model of and stepping stone towards perfect divine love. See also Cottrell’s enlightening remarks about Neoplatonism in her circle in “The Poetics of Transparency in Evangelical Discourse: Marot, Briçonnet, Marguerite de Navarre, Héroët,” in Lapidary Inscriptions: Renaissance Essays for Donald A. Stone, Jr., ed. Barbara C. Bowen and Jerry C. Nash, French Forum Monographs 74 (Lexington, Kentucky: French Forum Publishers, 1991), 32–44, esp., 37–38. See also Christine Martineau, “Le platonisme de Marguerite de Navarre?” Réforme, Humanisme, Renaissance 4 (1976), 12–35, as well as Hawkins, Charles Fontaine, ch. 5, and Ruutz-Rees, Charles de Sainte-Marthe, 298 ff. for those authors.

488

chapter ten

Poesie. In one of the longer of these poems, “A madamoiselle Beringue. De leur honneste, et irreprehensible Amour,” he defends their love for each other as being founded in love for the one true Love, encouraging her at the end: Or vivons donc par tel Amour conjoincts, Et retenons avec nous, deux adjoincts, En attendant le fruict de l’Esperance, Dieu pour faveur, Foy pour perseverance.75

For Sainte-Marthe, their true love of God is the basis for their true love of each other. They are not separate spheres. He praises other people for being similarly guarded from worldly love by their true faith.76 Like Rabelais in his Abbé de Thélème, he also brings into question, at least implicitly, the requirement of clerical celibacy, when telling “Edmond Bourel Chanoine de Romans en Daulphiné, que (suivant l’ordonnance de Dieu) mieulx vault se marier, que d’entretenir Paillardes.”77 Affirming that marriage “est de Dieu concédé sans offense” to all, he declares that the canon should marry since living alone in continence is not in his or any other human’s power. Third, by combining secular and religious verse, the Sons of Apollo may even have been more effective in reaching the average lay person with their religious views than the wonted prescriptive and admonitory texts of Catholic and Protestant theologians. Such multi-faceted poetry engaged contemporaries as they were in all their complexity and contradictions. Through the perennially popular topic of human love, they led their readers to consider divine love and its sister virtues, faith and hope.

75 Poesie francoise, 145–147. For other poems of this kind about his Beringue, see 14, 21, 22, 25, 52, 54, 56, 58, 66, 75, 86, 91, 183, and 233. 76 In “A la Dame et bien aymée de M. P. Tolet, Medicin du grand Hospital de Lyon, son singulier Amy,” he praises a female friend for her virtue founded in faith: “Tu as getté un si bon fondement, / Que dirver ne le peut nullement / La volupté, qui soit exterieure, / Car la deffence y est interieure. / Toute Vertu, joincte avec vive Foy, / Ont si bien fait le rampard devers soy, / Que les assaulx de plaisance mondaine, / N’y peuvent rien que de puissance vaine.” Poesie francoise, 172–176, 175 for passage cited. Dolet celebrated Marot’s love for Anne, and Nicolas Bourbon’s for “Rubella” in his Carminum libri quatuor, 57. 77 Poesie francoise, 87. Discussion of clerical celibacy in evangelical circles began in the early 1520s. Antoine Papillon translated or had translated for Marguerite, Luther’s attack on monastic vows, De votis monasticis iudicium. See chapter 7, note 167.

the ‘sons of apollo’ in the service of christ

489

Hope in Adversity The Sons of Apollo coalesced under the third theological virtue, hope, their thought about suffering, tribulation, persecution, enduring love’s torments, fate, fortune, providence, predestination, God’s faithfulness, perseverance, and long-suffering. In many poems, Sainte-Marthe presents God’s reigning majesty, his providential governance over all things, as a source of personal comfort in the face of religious persecution and abandonment by family and friends. In this he was, perhaps consciously, echoing Calvin’s sentiment about the consolation to be found in the doctrine of God’s eternal predestination and preservation of the elect. Sainte-Marthe develops these themes most fully in a 160-line poem on “predestination” which opens the third section of his Poesie francoise.78 In it he meditates at length about the cause of the tribulations he had already suffered, concluding that they were merited chastisement from God because of his “chair, à tout mal faire incliné.” He denies that fortune, whom the ancients personified as a goddess, or the stars had had a hand. Only God is in control and he acts justly. Addressing God he confesses: Je ne l’erray à un aultre saisir L’auctorité, qui seulement est tienne, Car je scay bien failloir, que je maintienne, (Pour justement l’un des tiens me tenir) Que rien ne peut icy nous advenir, soit bien, soit Mal, que par ton ordonnance’ J’apelle donc Fortune, ta puissance. . . . Ton sainct Escript bien donne instruction, . . . Que rien ne fais sinon avec justice, Et que, combien souvent nous soit advis, Que ton bien n’est egallement divis.79

Proclaiming that he fully deserved to suffer, “En confessant, que t’ayant irrité, / J’ay grand tourment justement merité,”80 he nevertheless finds refuge and hope in God, who in consideration of the good intercessor, Christ, will hold none of his sins against him. “Là est le Roc où mon salut je fonde. . . . Vela ma Foy, et la fin où veulx tendre.” In that

78

“A Dieu. Confession de son infirmité, et Invocation de sa Grace: Veoyant le sort et destination, / Où me conduit predestination, / . . .,” Poesie francoise, 113–119. 79 Poesie francoise, 114, ll. 18–24, 33, and 40–42. 80 Poesie francoise, 118, ll. 125–126, cf. 116, l. 77.

490

chapter ten

thought, he finds complete joy.81 In another long poem, he implores a friend to accept that God, not fortune or the stars, sends tribulations, even to the elect (esleux). This knowledge, he claims, should free his friend and himself from the weight of suffering, giving them great confidence in their eventual deliverance.82 Paralleling but not necessarily contradicting his claim to have merited tribulation because of his sins in general, he proclaims that he had suffered persecution specifically, just as the Scriptures predict, for trying to “mon Seigneur maintenir, / Et son party hardyment soubstenir.”83 He reiterates this message of consolation in adversity to fellow evangelicals like Jean de Boyssoné throughout the work:84 Nous confessons, que Dieu seul, nous regente: Et droit vers luy prenons nostres recours: Car nous scavons Bien, et Mal, avoir cours, Ainsi qu’il plaist à sa grande puissance.85

The subject leads him to meditate on a psalm of consolation, “Psalm 120, Lors que je suis en tribulation,” giving the Protestant numbering for the Vulgate’s Psalm 119 “Canticum Gradum: Ad Dominum in tribulatione mea clamavi et exaudivit me.”86

81

Poesie francoise, 119, ll. 156 ff. “Elegie en forme d’epistre, à Monsieur le Chevalier de Monthozier, Que à qui IESVS ayde, rien ne peut nuyre,” Poesie francoise, 205–210. 83 Notably Sainte-Marthe’s discussion of suffering for the sake of religion comes in an appeal to Marguerite for further aid beyond what she had already shown to him. See his “A la Royne de Navarre,” Poesie francoise, 119–124, esp. 120–121, ll. 31–42. Again, elsewhere he asserts that Jesus Christ and his followers will always be opposed in this world, 56. 84 See for instance, “A Monsieur Boissoné, Conseiller à Cambery. Qu’on se doibt fyer, au seul Seigneur, non aux Hommes,” Poesie francoise, 57–58; “A Madamoiselle Beringue, Que nostre Esperance doibt estre en Dieu,” 66; “A Iean de Saincte Marthe son cousin, Que nous debvons louer Dieu de tout,” 85; and further 16, 26, 67–68, and 105. 85 “A P. de Marillac, comment on doibt prendre ce terme Fortune,” Poesie francoise, 10. Exactly the same sentiment was expressed on the title page of Simon Du Bois’ imprint of the classic biblical book about maintaining faith in the face of suffering, the book of Job, Texte de Hiob, translaté selon la verité hebraique, et bref commentaire du Viateur sur icelluy (Paris: Simon Du Bois, 1534?): “Si nous avons receu bien du seigneur dieu, pourquoy aussy ne recepvrons nous le mal? Le seigneur dieu la donne, le seigneur dieu la oste. Il est faict comme il a pleu au seigneur dieu: le nom du seigneur dieu soit beneit.” If, as Francis Higman has intriguingly argued, Simon Du Bois printed this edition at Paris in 1534 along with several other tracts following flight from Alençon, it makes these tracts all the more programmatic given the ongoing trials in Alençon and the troubles that had occurred at Paris over the past year. See Francis M. Higman, “Simon Du Bois à Paris en 1534?” BHR 42 (1980), 413–419. 86 “Paraphrase du Pseaulme 120,” Poesie francoise, 48. He would later publish two further works on the Psalms in Latin. 82

the ‘sons of apollo’ in the service of christ

491

All of these themes about suffering for the sake of Christ, God’s providential guidance of individual lives, predestination, and perseverance in the face of adversity are echoed in the works of other Sons of Apollo. As noted above, Charles Fontaine dedicated his translation of the first part of St. Augustine’s treatise on predestination to Francis I circa 1540, announcing to the monarch in much the same vein: Mais je preins icy la prédestination pour prescience ou providence, considérant aussi que moy (quel que je soye) j’ay ung petit expérimenté, comme Dieu m’en a faict la grace, la grande vertu et efficace de la congnoissance de ceste predestination. C’est à sçavoir qu’elle m’a consolé en tribulation, esperonné en la course de bonne vie, asseuré en doubte, et brief, qu’elle m’a donné une indicible paix de conscience et une confirmation contre toute adversité.87

Like Fontaine, Marguerite and others stressed that God’s providential hand, not fortune is behind all things, the good and the bad.88 In Rabelais’s interpretation of the enigma mentioned above, Gargantua took some solace that the persecution of those adhering to the gospel had long been predicted. Many of Marot’s poems—Enfer, “Riche en pauvreté,” and “La mort du Juste, et du Pescheur” (attributed)—as well as his very motto, Mort n’y mord, proclaimed similar thanksgiving and gritty hope in the face of tribulation and the threat of death.89 Marot’s desire to find ‘hope in adversity’ was abiding. Indeed, it was his point of entry into his project to render the Psalms into verse. He began sometime in the early 1530s with his versification of Psalm 6: “Domine ne in furore tuo arguas me . . .,” a plea for God’s mercy and aid against one’s enemies, which he had published in one of the 1533 Augereau reprints of Marguerite’s Miroir in the very season when her work and

87

Quoted in Hawkins, Maistre Charles Fontaine, 46. Scalamandrè notes that in Fontaine’s unpublished Epistres he describes predestination to salvation or damnation and God’s providential care of the elect in this life in ways similar to Luther, Melanchthon, Erasmus, Lefèvre, Calvin, Marot, and even Marguerite in her Dialogue en forme nocturne, vv. 1036–1050: “Considerez que de la providence / De dieu tout vient, et non pas de fortune. / Dieu ordonne tout par sa sapience.” See his Un poeta della Preriforma: Charles Fontaine, 37–38. For a helpful exposition of Marguerite’s mature thought on providence as expressed in the Heptaméron, see Thysell, The Pleasure of Discernment, ch. 4, “Of Brigands and Bridles: Providence in the work of Calvin and Marguerite of Navarre.” 89 See Marot, OP 2, 20, 691, and 713. Marot’s motto first appeared in print at the end of his “Deploration sur le trespass de feu messier Florimond Robertet” in the c. 1530 edition of his Opuscules, d8r. 88

492

chapter ten

Cop were bring censured.90 So too, Fontaine encourages the just to remain steadfast when they are persecuted for preaching the gospel: Console toy, amy, en la parolle Du Seigneur Dieu et de son Filz trescher, Lequel apparent tous ceulx de son escolle A souffrir moult, pour dire et pour prescher La verité qui ne se vault cacher. Ains d’autant plus on la vault rendre morte, Elle resourd et plus vifve et plus forte, Ou le levain que l’on presse de sorte Qu’il a beaucoup de farine amassé.91

For Étienne Dolet providence and predestination were major themes. He appended a sermon by Saint Chrysostom on God’s providence to the end of his 1542 edition of an Exhortation à la lecture des sainctes lettres.92 As Dolet’s career demonstrates, when discussing and even, perhaps, living out of a lively sense of predestination, he and the other evangelical writers sailed into dangerous waters. Dolet’s thought on fate, fortune, and predestination in his Fata regis and Carminum libri quatuor headed the censors’ long list in 1542 of the things wrong with his many works.93 The evangelicals’ theology of predestination spoke directly to their experience as a persecuted, dissenting minority. In this set of ideas, such evangelical writers were modeling a twofold hope: first, that they would be saved from their sinful selves in the hereafter; and second,

90 For penetrating insight into Marot’s personal theological commitments as he is ‘caught in the act of translation’ of Psalm 6 and his later versifications, see Bernard Roussel, “Les Psaumes: le texte massorétique, les vers de Clément Marot,” in Clément Marot: “prince des poëtes françois,” ed. Gérard Defaux and Michel Simonin, 435–453. 91 Scalamandrè, ed., Un poeta della Preriforma: Charles Fontaine, no. 84, 230, cf. “Aultre epistre consolatifve,” no. 35, 186–188, esp. ll. 53–56, “Le mal n’est pas tousjours punition / Pour noz pechez, mais admonition / De patience et de perseverance, / En vraye foy, avec ferme esperance.” 92 (Lyon: Étienne Dolet, 1542), Higman E 69, 117–132, “De la Providence divine. Premierement faict en Grec par sainct Jehan Chrysostome: et maintenant translaté en langue Francoyse.” 93 In defending Dolet, the king’s letter of remission notes that “Il [Dolet] auroit esté enquis et interrogé sur certains livres [by ecclesiastical authorities] . . . assavoir sur ung qu’il nous avoit desdyé et intitulé Des Gestes du Roy aultrement en latin Fata Regis; pareillement sur les épigrammes par luy composez, en voulant inferrer qu’il avoit usé de ce mot “fatum” non comme devoit faire ung crestyen mays en celle signification que le prenoient les anciens philosophes, voulant aprouver la predestination.” See Longeon, Documents d’archives sur Étienne Dolet, 26.

the ‘sons of apollo’ in the service of christ

493

that they would be sustained by God here below when being oppressed for the sake of the gospel. Beyond articulating core doctrines and encouraging their brethren to endure adversity, these evangelical writers sought to aid readers in the practice of their faith. As an aid to devotions, they composed many verse prayers, meditations on the life of Christ as well as on key passages of Scripture (loci communes). They translated into French verse the basic symbols of the faith, the Ten Commandments, the Creed, Lord’s Prayer, as well as the Ave Maria, the canticle of Simeon, and, perhaps most important, those rich resources for personal and collective piety from time immemorial, the Psalms of David.94 In all of this, they rejoined and pointed the way for their readers to consult the extensive range of devotional and catechetical materials made available by evangelical printers and mostly anonymous authors.95 The records of the heresy trials at Toulouse and Alençon as well as Charles de Sainte-Marthe’s testimony about the religious life at Marguerite’s court in the 1540s96 suggest that throughout the period, groups closely connected to Marguerite’s network meditated on such texts and used them in collective devotions. How these authors’ broader audience employed these texts, singly and in small study groups, or even ritually in worship settings remains and deserves to be studied.

94 Many of these catechetical poems have been touched on above. In addition to Marot’s Psalms translations, see his verse renderings of the “Cantique de Simeon,” “Commendements de Dieu,” and two other prayers, Marot, OP 2, 517–679, esp. 676–679. Other prayers filled out the end of Marguerite’s Miroir, as well as in its companion work, a little model book of devotion (and correct orthography), Jean Salomon, Epistre familiere de prier Dieu (Paris: [Antoine Augereau], 1533). See William “Marguerite of Navarre, Clément Marot, and the Augereau Editions of the Miroir de l’âme pécheresse.” Bonaventure Des Périers provided a number of devotional meditations in his 1544 Recueil, such as the aforementioned “Victime pascali laudes,” 87; “Cantique de la Vierge,” 90; “Cantique de Simeon,” 91; and a poem addressed to Marguerite on how to contemplate the cross, 198. Charles Fontaine offered his vernacular verse renderings of “Le hymne de Veni Creator Spiritus,” an “Oraison au Sainct Esprit,” Psalms 40, 80, 102 and 78, and a prayer to be said upon waking. See Scalamandrè, ed., Un poeta della Preriforma, nos. 40, 41, 43–46, pp. 202–204 and 205–208. 95 Works in the traditional genres of religious instruction form the heart of Francis Higman’s biographical study, Piety and the People. For analysis of their content and confessional orientation, see his seminal article, “Theology for the Layman in the French Reformation 1520–1550,” The Library, 6th ser., 9 (1987), 105–127 as well as his collected articles, Lire et découvrir: La circulation des idées au temps de la Réforme, THR 326, (Geneva: Droz, 1998). 96 See respectively, chapters 9 and 11.

494

chapter ten

When considering the potential impact of this corpus of literature on the religious sensibilities of contemporaries, a few leitmotifs of their poetry and action merit emphasis. First, the poets’ project to inculcate piety was a collective effort. Through their writing and publishing they constituted a ‘community of discourse,’ a group engaged in a multiparty dialogue about the fundamentals of the faith and their application to life. They projected this discourse into public view and were consciously trying to shape the beliefs of a wider audience.97 Second, their discourse covered many subjects and was, within limits, open not closed. We certainly cannot issue membership cards as fully-fledged evangelical Sons of Apollo to most poets of the age based on their affirmed doctrinal statements.98 Nevertheless, the contributions of even their Catholic opponents to the topics and debates orchestrated by the likes of Marguerite, Marot, Dolet, and Sainte-Marthe, helped evangelical poets to articulate their views. Third, the interconnections between the various subjects of their poetry meant that when addressing one particular issue evangelical poets could allude to and draw readers into the wider sphere of evangelical discourse. Fourth, by broaching evangelical doctrines without drawing hard and fast conclusions about which reforms might be required in light of them, the Sons of Apollo may have been better able to introduce such ideas to all those who, to paraphrase Marguerite’s Miroir preface, had not yet closed their hearts or minds. Lastly, as we have seen above, central figures among the Sons of Apollo such as Bourbon, Des Périers, Fontaine, Brodeau, Sainte-Marthe, Beaulieu, Dolet, Rabelais, Marot, and Marguerite were unified by doctrine, mutual affection, and deed.99 They hewed to certain normative doctrines of salvation and often coordinated their expression

97 These evangelicals collectively articulated their religious “ideology” with their social surroundings much as Robert Wuthnow has theoretically described Luther and his colleagues doing in Communities of Discourse: Ideology and Social Structure in the Reformation, the Enlightenment, and European Socialism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989), introduction, 1–22. 98 See the dozens of brother poets listed in note 5. 99 There were indeed flare-ups, even permanent breaks between Sainte-Marthe and Rabelais, Bourbon and Visagier, and Dolet and a slew of others after 1538, including Marot and Rabelais. However, these disagreements only hold interest insofar as they were corrosive to the generally unified front they presented over a long period of time. See Defaux’s introduction to Marot, OP 1, XXXIII–XLIII, and notes to “In detractorem, A Estienne Dolet,” OP 2, 1156; Ruutz-Rees, Charles de Sainte-Marthe, 201 ff.; and Copley Christie, Étienne Dolet, 370 ff.

the ‘sons of apollo’ in the service of christ

495

of right religion as well as their polemics in its favor with Marguerite and her networks’ political gambits and preaching campaigns. In conclusion, if we are ever to gain a clear picture of the evolution of the religious contest that led to the Wars of Religion, a full survey of the religious works of domestic French writers, especially the poets, is needed. This agenda is all the more pressing because such poets presented, as these initial soundings indicate, a largely coherent religious vision that offered an alternative to both domestic conservatives as well as to the hardliners in Geneva, who openly vilified traditional beliefs and demanded a clean break with the medieval church. The religious poetry of the Sons of Apollo, in my view, comes close to modeling a full and well-centered piety. So far, with the exception of the recognized leading lights—Rabelais, Marot, Marguerite, and Dolet—the other Sons of Apollo remain in obscurity. In sum, we need to investigate comprehensively the volume, content, consistency, and coherence of French evangelical authors’ modeling of correct doctrine and piety as well as their invective against the false beliefs and human inventions of the traditional church. The reason is quite simple. Verse was an incredibly potent mode of discourse in a largely oral age. We already know that the singing of Marot’s Psalms came eventually to embody, in a sense, the Huguenot cause culturally and ritually.100 The former Huguenot, turned Catholic historian and polemicist, Florimond de Raemond devoted four chapters of his explanation of the birth of heresy in France to Marot’s Psalms in recognition of their power. He went so far as to assert that the founding of the Reformed churches “dates back to Marot’s Psalms.”101 For us, the question remains: What then was the impact of his and his brother poets’ verse in shaping the religious sensibilities of people—if not those on the extremes, then those in the middle—during the thirty years between Marot’s adolescence and France’s frenzied descent into religious civil war? 100 For a compelling analysis of the power of song, especially the Psalms when sung, see Andrew Pettegree, Reformation and the Culture of Persuasion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), ch. 2 “Militant in song.” 101 In the 1623 Rouen edition, Florimond de Raemond, L’histoire de la naissance . . . de l’hérésie, bk 8, “Chapitre XIIII. Du chant des Psalmes introduit en l’Eglise Calviniste, par le moyen duquel ils ont seduit les simples,” 1031–1035; “Chapitre XV. Erreurs et faussetez commises en la version des Pseaumes,” 1036–1040; “Chapitre XVI. De Clement Marot traducteur des Pseaumes, sa vie et sa mort,” 1040–1044; and “Chapitre XVIII. De Theodore de Beze, imitateur de Marot, et comme les Psalmes furent mis en musique, 1045–1051,” which concludes with the programmatic thesis: “L’Eglise Calviniste est de la datte des Pseaumes de Marot”!

CHAPTER ELEVEN

SECRET DIPLOMACY AND RELIGIOUS DISSIMULATION, 15401549

Marguerite’s network continued to operate through the 1540s in increasingly difficult circumstances. The examples discussed below show the impressive range of their activities, from playing gambits on the international diplomatic stage—often behind the scenes—to slowly and quietly building evangelical communities on the local level. While they were working on these fronts, Calvin took aim at the network’s leaders in several anti-Nicodemite works. His public stance against ‘religious compromise,’ as he would have it, has long been recognized as an important factor in the rise of an internally cohesive and strong Reformed movement within the realm. The choice of his targets points to one of the key dynamics in the development of the Reformation in France. In his ‘missionary strategy,’ Calvin appears to have attempted to extract evangelicals from under the wing of Marguerite and her network in order to gather them into a distinct religious community, one that was unambiguously allied to the ‘pure’ doctrines, practices, and church polities of the Protestants over the border.

“The Emperor is Hypocrisy and the Pope the Devil”: Evangelical Diplomacy at the Court of Francis I, 1540–1547 I have to love Prince Henry, for . . . he and I be both of the same religious opinion, for neither of us love the Pope; and I think the Pope would be glad to see both our destructions, for which purpose he practices with the Emperor, that is to say, with hypocrisy; for the Emperor is Hypocrisy and the Pope the Devil.1

1 Spelling and syntax are slightly modernized. This and the following quotations are from Paget to Henry VIII, from Paris, 26 February 1542, Letters and Papers 17, no. 128, 52–55. This edition of sources contains a potentially confusing mixture of summaries, transcriptions, and translations of original texts. In citing passages from Letters and Papers, single quotation marks are used for the editor’s summaries and double quotation marks for the text of the original documents.

498

chapter eleven

Thus spoke Marguerite of Navarre in February 1542 when broaching a secret proposal to the English ambassador, William Paget, for an alliance of their two kingdoms. She predicted that an agreement sealed by the marriage of the two king’s children would bring “the greatest benefit that ever came to Christendom.” In effect, such a union would have established an anti-Hapsburg axis comprising England, France, the duke of Cleves (who was married to Marguerite’s daughter), and the duke’s allies, the Protestant princes of the Schmalkaldic League. Invoking the religious stumbling block to past proposals of union, Paget objected that there was no greater popery than in France, where recently a dozen honest persons had been imprisoned for vilifying the bishop of Rome. Blaming the influence of the “maskers in red caps” (cardinals on the king’s council), Marguerite assured Paget that other “good Christians” at court, including Admiral Chabot de Brion and the Du Bellay brothers, could, with English help, send their enemies to the devil and bring France around to an alliance based upon a religious union. This exchange draws attention to an important historiographical blind spot. The Placards Affair of 1534 is generally thought to have fixed the religious fate of France. Thereafter, while scholars have noted the rise of factionalism at the French court,2 they have argued for the diminishing influence of evangelical courtiers and in particular of Marguerite.3 Thus, Marguerite’s partner in proposing a Franco-English alliance in 1542, Admiral Chabot de Brion, similarly called the pope the Devil, ‘Paget likens the Pope to “vice,” “Call you him vice?” quod he [the admiral], “he is the very Devil,” ’ Paget to Henry VIII, 22 April 1542, Letters and Papers, no. 263, 141–145. ‘Paget wished he might see the day that pardons were as little set by there as in England. “Par le corps Dieu,” quod he [the Admiral] cholerickly, “for my part I set nother by pardon nor Pope, et le Diable emporte et le Pape et tous les Papilions avecques.” ’ Paget to Henry VIII, 15 May 1542, Letters and Papers 17, no. 328, 190–193. 2 As all contemporary observers noted, Francis I’s councillors exerted key pressure in shaping French policy, yet they were divided politically. This account will stress their religious divisions. Scholars date the rise of court factionalism in France to the mid-1530s; see Knecht, Renaissance Warrior, 483–486. See further, for French courtiers’ involvement in the fight against heresy, ibid., 508–518; and Richard Bonney, The European Dynastic States, 1494–1660, The Short Oxford History of the Modern World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), 107–109. 3 Pierre Jourda’s account of Marguerite’s political role is marred by contradictory and contentious arguments that underplay Marguerite’s evangelical commitments. This is particularly evident in his lack of treatment of her ‘evangelical diplomacy,’ which will be discussed below. For example, he barely mentions and fails to interpret her involvement during the period 1540–1546 in French overtures to the Schmalkaldic League and Henry VIII. See Jourda, Marguerite, 304, 309, and 313. See further Augustin Renaudet’s critical review of Jourda’s biography, “Marguerite de Navarre. A propos

secret diplomacy and religious dissimulation, –

499

they discount the religious component of subsequent French overtures to the English and the German Protestants as mere pretext. The sources, however, show that during the period 1540–1546 an evangelical faction,4 whose anchor had long been Marguerite, continued to operate at court. Its major figures were Admiral Chabot de Brion, the Du Bellay brothers, and less reliably, madame d’Étampes, the king’s mistress.5 They promoted foreign policies that would create

d’une biographie,” ch. in idem, Humanisme et Renaissance (Geneva, 1958; repr. Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1981), 217–235. Heather Vose profiles Marguerite’s important role in English diplomacy, but does little to explain why she was thus engaged, and misses the point that her involvement with England formed part of a much larger religious and political program. She cites several of the same passages used here, including the quote that introduces this section. Aware of the limitations of her source base, she restricts her conclusions to pointing out that Marguerite, though a women, was nevertheless powerful and played an important political role. See Heather Vose, “Marguerite of Navarre: That ‘Righte English Woman,’ ” SCJ 16 (1985), 315–333. Most scholars follow Jourda when interpreting the later phase of her career. Exceptionally, Maurice Causse presents Marguerite as a cagey, double-dealing diplomatic player, who ultimately betrayed her evangelical commitments in order to further the political interests of her husband and daughter. His portrayal of Marguerite’s diplomatic skills and evangelical commitment is corroborated by the findings of this study, but not his contention that she abandoned her evangelical brethren in the end. See Maurice Causse, “La ‘Familière Exposition’ de Gérard Roussel et l’Aventure ‘Nicodémite’ en Guyenne,” BSHPF 131 (1985), 5–33; and idem, “Les dissimulations de Marguerite de Navarre et l’Aventure Nicodémite,” BSHPF 132 (1986), 347–390. 4 Jean de St. Mauris, the imperial ambassador in France, wrote to Charles V on 15 November 1546 that the “Protestants in Court are receiving much favour, madame d’Étampes calling them her brother evangelists, for she inclines to the Lutheran discipline.” Letters and Papers 21, pt. 2, no. 406, 194. While St. Maurice goes on to cast doubt on the sincerity of duchess d’Étampes, as chapters 7–9 have demonstrated, Marguerite and her and her allies at court had constituted and been recognized by outsiders, from the Faculty of Theology of Paris to foreign diplomats, as the ‘Protestant’ faction at court. 5 For instance, on 3 April 1542 Paget reported to Henry VIII the reasons the Admiral, Chabot de Brion, had given for his, madame d’Étampes, and Marguerite of Navarre’s support of the proposed marriage alliance between their two nations. “Paget reminded him [the admiral] . . . that if the practices of others broke it off, it would touch no man so much as himself; for the Emperor’s darling was the Constable, ‘whose hand is the Chancellor,’ [Guillaume Poyet] and if they once came in again together he [the admiral] could look for no courtesy at their hands. He seemed pleased, and said it was true that the Emperor, whom he loved not, had lately made overtures through the Pope’s nuncio for a French ambassador to reside with him, as a proof to the world of friendship between them, but his master would scant listen; as to the Chancellor, he only meddled with judicial matters; ‘as touching this treaty now in hand, no creature knoweth it but I and Madame d’Étampes and the third suspecteth it.’ ‘That is the Queen of Navarre (quod I). So it is (quod he), who is a right English woman. And whereas you said it touched no man as much as me, yes, it toucheth these two no less; the one in respect of the Queen, who, if the King and th’Emperor join, must be otherwise treated

500

chapter eleven

conditions favorable to an evangelical religious settlement for France. While ultimately they failed to sway Francis to support their plans in full, they played the cards of their evangelical diplomacy to the very end of his reign. One may object that establishing this thesis, or indeed any assertion about the real intentions of the players in international relations, is an extremely hazardous enterprise. Foreign affairs were fundamentally vitiated by duplicity. Diplomatic sources present a dizzying array of contradictory evidence. In their public and private negotiations, most parties were extremely careful. They deceived their foes and often only told their allies, whom they could not always trust, convenient halftruths. Consequently, mutual trust was hard to build. As one English diplomat remarked in response to a friendly overture from the French, “I never trust these crafty children.”6 Diplomatic sources may thus be thought to present deceptive appearances often enough to undermine attempts to understand real intentions. In particular, anyone seeking to analyze the goals of French courtiers encounters additional interpretive problems similar to those faced by scholars of the Henrician Reformation. Both courts were divided by factionalism. Arguments turn on sorting out the real interests—dynastic, personal, pecuniary, religious, or otherwise—of the king and his closest advisors as well as the relative importance of the influence of each in setting the final course of action taken by the court. The French evangelical courtiers’ sincerity in attempting to build a political and religious alliance with England and the Schmalkaldic League in the 1540s, and hence their commitment to a political settlement favorable to their religious beliefs, can be gauged by answering four questions: 1) Were their overtures to forge an international evangelical settlement consistent with their previous attempts in the mid-1530s? 2) Was their attempt to convince anti-Hapsburg powers to cooperate on the basis of religious concord really necessary? In other words, could they have built such an alliance with the German Protestants,

than she is now, and th’other in respect of Navarre, for then farewell her kingdom.’ ” Letters and Papers 17, no. 232, 110–111. 6 9 October 1546, Letters and Papers 21, pt. 2, no. 248, 117. The document is not signed or addressed, but is clearly from an English agent, probably the ambassador to France, Nicolas Wotton, addressed to a superior. See CAF 9, 93. Significantly, the English agent makes this remark when discussing an overture by the evangelical faction at court.

secret diplomacy and religious dissimulation, –

501

as Henry II’s advisors would do in the 1550s, simply by appealing to mercenary reasons of mutual benefit without the appeal to religious concord? 3) What dangers did they run in pursuing these plans and what losses did they incur in failing? 4) And, as a litmus test of their sincerity, one that German Protestants constantly applied to them: Did they use their administrative powers to support the evangelical cause within the realm?7 The End of the Road: Insurmountable Obstacles, 1540–1547 After the evangelical courtiers’ failure in 1535 to secure an alliance with England and the Protestants of the Empire, conservative, pro-imperial Catholics gained ascendancy at court. The constable, Anne de Montmorency, induced Francis I to a rapprochement with the emperor, which coincided with a new series of royal orders to pursue heretics starting in 1538.8 Montmorency tried to convince the emperor to tender Milan—long the center of Francis I’s dynastic ambitions—in an acceptable marriage offer. When the emperor failed to do so, the constable’s powerful grip on royal policy quickly slackened, but conservatives, including Montmorency’s friends and protégés, such as Chancellor Poyet, remained in control at court. During the period 1540 to 1547, the evangelical faction attempted to resurrect the alliance system championed by the Du Bellay brothers in the mid-1530s. However, their plans now had a crucial difference: they excluded the pope from the proposed cooperation between France, England, and the Protestant Schmalkaldic League. Previously, the Du Bellays had attempted to resolve English and Protestant differences with the Papacy. Now the evangelical faction at court secretly advised that, with the right help from the pope’s enemies, they could convince Francis I to break with Rome.

7

Ultimately, full reconstructions of how evangelical courtiers used their power locally would allow us to ascertain the sort of reformed Gallican church to which Marguerite and her evangelical allies aspired, but which they could never fully articulate or pursue. 8 N. M. Sutherland, The Huguenot Struggle for Recognition (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1980), 337–339.

502

chapter eleven

Marguerite and the Cleves Marriage Scheme, 1540–1543 In its first formulation during 1540–1543, the evangelicals’ alliance scheme hinged on the marriage of Marguerite’s daughter Jeanne d’Albret with the duke of Cleves-Jülich-Berg. His Landsknecht-rich territories straddled the border between the Low Countries and the Empire. He was at odds with the emperor over his recent succession to the duchy of Gelderland. Although linked by family and affinity to the Protestant elector of Saxony, he had yet to adopt the Confession of Augsburg. Furthermore, he was on good terms with England up to and well after the few months in 1540 that his sister Anne was married to Henry VIII. The marriage of Marguerite’s daughter Jeanne d’Albret to the duke of Cleves on 14 June 1541 was a major religio-political event.9 On the political front, it sealed a quasi-alliance between Francis I and the Protestant princes. While the duke of Cleves was not formally a member of the Schmalkaldic League, the marriage provided proof of Francis’s commitment to the Protestant powers, which they had never had good reason to believe previously. The marriage fostered the hope that Francis would reopen the religious dialogue in order to strengthen relations with the Germans and English, creating the most favorable opportunity for an ‘evangelical’ religious settlement since the failed negotiations of 1535. For the pro-Imperial, Catholic faction at court, the marriage was a blow.10 It was worse still for Henri d’Albret, king of Navarre, who had placed his greatest hope for regaining his lost kingdom of Spanish Navarre on a secret proposal of marriage of his daughter Jeanne with Charles V’s son, Don Philip. The political implications of the Cleves marriage were clear when it was first proposed in the spring of 1540. For Marguerite, with whom the idea did not originate, the choice of whether or not to support it was very difficult. In the first place, she was caught between the conflicting wills of her brother and husband. In addition, the marriage proposal

9 For the discussion which follows, see Alphonse de Ruble, Le mariage de Jeanne d’Albret (Paris: Adolphe Labitte, 1877), vi and passim, and Knecht’s useful discussion of the marriage in the context of the power politics at court in the early 1540s, in Renaissance Warrior, 393–397. 10 In fact, Montmorency received the final humiliation at the marriage ceremony, which was a complete reversal of his pro-Imperial policy, one that drove him from court for the rest of Francis’s reign. He was publicly disgraced by having to carry the reluctant Jeanne d’Albret to the altar.

secret diplomacy and religious dissimulation, –

503

had many personal and practical problems. William, the Germanspeaking duke of Cleves, was twice the age of her daughter Jeanne, who was twelve. Moreover, the duke had not settled his disputes with the emperor over the lordship of his territories. It was only a matter of time before the emperor would make war on the duke. Thus, he was not the ideal man to offer Jeanne an easy transition to adulthood or the married life, nor was it at all clear that the alliance secured by this marriage had any chance of surviving an imperial victory over the duke of Cleves. Despite these drawbacks, Marguerite took great pains to bring about the union, thus revealing the depth of her commitment to strengthening ties with the German Protestants. She did more than simply arrange the terms of the marriage contract with her brother and the house of Cleves. Beyond this, she exchanged over two dozen letters from July 1540 to the summer of 1543 with the duke of Cleves as well as the elector of Saxony, John Frederick, and Philip of Hesse, whose support was necessary for the proposed Franco-Protestant alliance to succeed.11 Indeed, during this period the danger that the alliance would fall apart was high. As ever, neither Luther nor the Protestant princes much trusted Francis I because of his periodic fits of persecuting their confreres. Furthermore, the emperor sought every means to break it up. He made overtures to the Protestants for a religious settlement at meetings of the estates of the Empire in Worms and Regensburg, which would have eliminated the Protestants’ reason for joining with France. He fulminated against the duke of Cleves at the imperial diet and then declared him to be an outlaw. Lastly, he neutralized Philip of Hesse by threatening to prosecute the landgrave’s bigamous marriage, thereby blunting the power of the Schmalkaldic League. Marguerite’s letter writing campaign evidently helped to reassure at least the duke of Cleves and the Saxon elector. In the year after the marriage, Marguerite advised them on whom to use at court to keep Francis’s commitment strong. These efforts show that she was working for them in much the same capacity that she had done for Henry VIII in the 1530s.

11

Jourda, Marguerite, 299–301. For these letters, see as per appendix A Saulnier 1972, 283–336, and Jourda, Répertoire, for letters nos. 804.1, 820.1, 822.1, 822.2, 822.3, 823, 828.1, 830.1, 833.3, 857.1, 858.2, 858.3, 858.4, 858.5, 858.6, 861, 864, 872, 872.1 (= 872bis), 874, 881.1, 887, 890, 891.1, 891.2, 891.3, 891.4, 891.5, 941.3, and 942.

504

chapter eleven

After the marriage, the greater alliance, however, needed to be cemented with a clear victory over the emperor that would regularize the duke of Cleves’ situation. It was in this context that Marguerite sought to bring England into the quadruple anti-Imperial, anti-Roman alliance outlined above. The English rejected these overtures. In 1542, a general war broke out in which Cleves and France confronted the emperor. Despite Marguerite’s hopes, Francis, as feared, permitted the alliance to come to a crashing halt. In September 1543, at a crucial moment in the war, he idled his troops on the frontier instead of rallying to the aid of the endangered duke of Cleves, leaving his ally to suffer a complete defeat at the hands of Charles V. Even though this destroyed the links between France and the German Protestants, Philipp Melanchthon would still appeal to Marguerite for help thereafter.12 The next year, 1544, England seized the opportunity to join with the emperor and attacked a weakened France, taking Boulogne in few short months. Under the influence of Cardinal Tournon, Francis I capitulated to the emperor in the Treaty of Crépy (1544), leaving France and England at war. The Franco-Imperial peace was to be sealed through a dynastic marriage. With this offer in hand, Francis promised in the secret articles of Crépy to support the Council of Trent, ally against the Turk, make no treaty with England that did not include the emperor, and subsidize troops for Charles V’s planned war against the Schmalkaldic League.13 It was a complete rout of the hopes of evangelicals at court. The Last Gasp of Evangelical Diplomacy, 1545–1547 During the following year, 1545, French evangelical courtiers joined forces with ambassadors from the Schmalkaldic league to undermine the Franco-Imperial rapprochement and to give the Anglo-FrenchProtestant alliance scheme second life.14 The first, necessary step was 12

See Saulnier 1972, no. 955.1. For the secret articles, see A. Hasenclever, “Die Geheimartikel zum Friede von Crépy vom 19 September 1544,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 45 (1926), 418–426. 14 David Potter has written an incisive article on “Foreign Policy in the Age of the Reformation: French Involvement in the Schmalkaldic War, 1544–1547,” The Historical Journal 20 (1977), 525–544. His central theme, namely that French policy toward the German Protestants was indecisive because of the factionalism at court, is sound and will be validated below. He does little, however, to explain the policy goals and initiatives of the evangelical faction at court or to separate them from the initiatives of Francis’s ‘official’ policy, which, as he rightly argues, Tournon and the new admiral Annebault dominated. Concentrating here on the evangelicals’ overtures to the English 13

secret diplomacy and religious dissimulation, –

505

to end the ongoing Anglo-French war. That summer, the evangelical faction encouraged Johann Sturm and his Protestant colleagues to mediate between the warring kingdoms. Our knowledge of these secret overtures comes from English diplomatic correspondence. On 16 July 1545, two English envoys to Germany, Walter Bucler and Christopher Mount, reported to Henry VIII: A learned man named Johann Sturmius, an Argentine, privily retaining to the French king, on the 13th inst. sent a letter (enclosed) desiring Mont [Mount] to speak with him next day at Spirs. At their meeting, Sturmius said that a trusty servant whom he often sends to the French Court two days ago brought letters and also word that, fourteen days ago, being in France with letters from his master to the French king, the Cardinal Bellaius and others asked news of Germany, and he answered that at Worms the Protestants were sorry for the present wars between Francis and Henry. Next day the servant repeated the same words to the French king, who answered “that he might bear well the Protestants for arbiters and pacificatours” betwixt him and Henry, whom he has ever loved, perceiving their setting together to be done by craft of others, and that the intolerable cost of the war would be better employed otherwise. Francis added that he thought Henry would render Bologne upon honorable conditions, seeing the expense of keeping it; and he himself would pay all the arrears of the pension, being 800,000 cr[own]s and continue the payments at the accustomed terms. Francis said also that Henry laboured to make a confederacy with the Protestants, which, as tending to prolong the war with France, the Emperor did not mislike. Sturmius had no commission from the French king to propose such things, but had letters from Cardinal Bellaius, the Dolphin and the Admiral, desiring that they should be proposed to the Protestants; and he desired Mont to declare this to Henry. Mont asked for things [to be put] in writing and wrote out the articles (herewith) which Sturmius signed.15

As Mount explained to William Paget in a companion missive of the same day, Cardinal Tournon strongly opposed the evangelical faction’s plans. Sturm had told the English ambassadors that:

via their secret messengers, we hope to tease out one side of the complex double game at court. 15 Francis I expressed willingness for the Protestants to mediate, but he did not commission Sturm to pursue the matter. Other councillors worked against Tournon for this peace for a variety of motives. Jean Du Bellay, the Dauphin Henri (who was merely interested in preventing his brother from getting Milan through the imperial marriage stipulated at Crépy), and the admiral were those who urged Sturm to move the Protestants, but they were not tendering strong offers of religious league. Letters and Papers 20, pt. 1, no. 1205, 598–600.

506

chapter eleven Cardinal Turnon and another had interceded with the king of France not to try anything by the Protestants, as any alliance with them would offend the bishop of Rome. Sturmius said that he should easily get the French king himself to write to the Protestants thereupon, provided that they ask it; and he besought Mont to learn whether the King could bear that the Protestants should be mediators, as the French king desired that, by ambassadors of the Protestants, a cessation of hostilities might be the sooner obtained . . . [Mount concluded] it seems worth while to send this by a special messenger [in order to pursue this mater].16

When the Protestants agreed to mediate, the evangelicals were able to convince Francis to enter formal negotiations.17 At the ensuing meeting, representatives of the emperor, Henry VIII, Francis I, and the Protestant princes were all present. While the licensed diplomats traded unacceptable terms, Johann Sturm, Johannes Sleidan, and Doctor Bruno arrived in November on a covert mission to Paget, the English ambassador. They had been sent by Marguerite, madame d’Étampes, and Longueval with an ambitious plan to fix peace and then proceed to an alliance between England, France, and the Schmalkaldic League. In a first interview, Sturm and Bruno presented plans for a league with the English and the French as their own plans. The English were certainly interested in this alliance, but doubted French trustworthiness. Paget reported: Brewno began, much as Sleidanus did at his first access to Henry, and [said] apparently ex tempore, that (as their common enemy the Pope had the hearts of all the great princes, viz., the Emperor, king of Romans, king of the Poles and French king, and this war between Henry and France not only increased the force of others [the emperor and his allies] who, “not in words yet in re,” were common enemies [implied: of England and Protestants], but drew the French king more to the Pope’s devotion, whereby at length a conjunction of the great princes with the Pope would bring the Princes of Almayn and Henry under the bp. of Rome’s tyranny) they were sent to induce Henry and the French king to agreement. The enfeebling of Henry’s power was a decay to their own. . . . And he urged Paget to assist in alienating the French king from them [the emperor, king of Romans, and the Pope], who [Francis] would do more at the desire of his Princes and States than for any other if Henry would show himself disposed to peace.” When Paget called Francis untrustworthy,

16

Mont to Paget, 16 July 1545, from Worms, Letters and Papers 20, pt. 1, no. 1207, 600–601. 17 Negotiations started in October 1545 and dragged on through December. CAF 9, missions nos. 194 and 195, 32.

secret diplomacy and religious dissimulation, –

507

“Brewno broke in by saying that he heard that personally there had been no contumely between the Kings as between the French king and some other, and therefore the fault lay on their ministers, the King [Henry VIII] was loved by the French king, the Queen of Navarre, the Chancellor and also Madame Destampes.” Paget responded that ‘the French were alluring the Protestants to work for them on pretense that it would bind them against the Bishop of Rome; that was a new and pleasant tale to the Protestants but old to the English, who had heard so much of “the taking of Avignon, the devising of a patriarcha,” that it was now out of their creed until they should see it done.’18

In a second interview on 22 November, Bruno and Sturm revealed that their real authority to broach such plans came from the evangelical faction at court. Paget reported to Henry VIII: [Sturm and Bruno] expressed desire for this peace to take effect by their means, as they [the Protestants] would then trust to come in confederation with the Kings. Here they set forth the French king’s desire for it and the travail of some personage (naming nobody) [madame d’Étampes or Marguerite, see further] to induce him thereto, contrary to the minds of the Admiral [d’Annebaut], Bayard and Card. Turnon, who were Papists and desired to have the matter ended by the Emperor . . . Now, fearing that those who were so travailing with the French king might withdraw, and the French king seek other friendship noisome both to Henry and them, they wished Paget to tell them whereto Henry would “grow.” Answered that this was a piece of his commission which he might not speak of save in presence of his colleagues [Gardiner and others], and which would be best reasoned with the French king’s ministers [Admiral d’Annebaut, François Olivier, and Bayard] sent for the purpose. They said that they had further commission than, perhaps, the special commissioners [Pierre Rémon, Matthieu de Longuejoue, bishop of Soissons, and Guillaume Bochetel] who were coming knew of; for Mons. de Longuevale had sent a letter to Paget by his man La Planche, who prayed them to deliver it and would tarry after the first assembly with the French commissioners; this was not an indirect means, but, as things were to be spoken not meet for all men to know . . . [They would] declare more if Paget would promise to participate it to none but Henry and his secretary at home.’19

The next day Sturm came again to Paget. Having discussed terms for Boulogne,

18

Paget to Henry VIII, 21 November 1545, Calais, Letters and Papers 20, pt. 2, no. 836, 402–404. 19 Paget to Henry VIII, 23 November 1545, Calais, Letters and Papers 20, pt. 2, no. 856, 416–418 for this and the next two quotations.

508

chapter eleven Afterwards [Sturm] made overtures (which he had commission to utter as his own device) which were the work of Madame Destampes and Mons. Longuevale; the French king hated the Emperor, and so did the Dauphin, . . . [there follow details of France’s insincere negotiations via Admiral d’Annebaut with the emperor, which were only to counter English overtures] Sturmius durst undertake to get the French king to revoke the Admiral if Paget would persuade Henry to revoke Winchester. Paget thought that in any case the Admiral would not tarry long there unless to take advantage of what was done here [i.e., the sidelining of Henry VIII]. Nay, said Sturmius, the Admiral should never know of this overture of his, and prayed Paget to let none know it save the King, and in anywise to kept it from Winchester. Madame Estampes, the Dauphin and Longuevale, who laboured to set the Admiral “besides the cushyn,” willed him [Sturm] to open it, and it was this:—Henry to keep Bulloyn, be paid his pension yearly, and have the daughter of Scotland for the Prince [Edward], Bulloyn to be kept until arrears and war expenses were paid. That Henry and the French king should not consume each other, to the advantage of their enemies, but make peace and take the Protestants in with them was the reason why the latter travailed in this matter. Henry and the Protestants would thus be safe from the Emperor and Pope.’

Paget expressed grave doubts to Sturm, but nevertheless asked Henry VIII for instructions on all matters, and confessed that: he [Paget] has more trust in Sturmius’s private practices, who is in credit with the French king and those about him that are “not the great favourers of the Bishop of Rome, whereof the Admiral, Bayard, and Turnon are chief captains.”

Shortly thereafter, circa 5 December, La Planche tried to reassure Paget that the evangelical faction at court fully supported the tripartite alliance, and were working to induce Francis to split with Rome. As proof, he produced a letter of credence from Marguerite to Paget. She expressed her desire for peace and, in veiled terms, for a religious league: [Marguerite] thanks God for setting these Princes on the way to this happy peace, of which she learnt by La Planche that Paget is one of the ministers. Assures him that she and Madame d’Étampes act together in promoting it. . . . If Paget’s king is not too unreasonable, she hopes for a real amity; for, by their influence, the King, her brother, will be found more than reasonable. She prays God to bind these two hearts in one, to exalt His holy name in order that, without idolatry, He alone may be honoured as God in Heaven and on Earth.20

20 Paget reported: ‘[La Planche] plucked me a letter out of his bosom from the Queen of Navarre [as summarized above], which he delivered with commendations from her

secret diplomacy and religious dissimulation, –

509

In this intense exchange, we can see that Paget did not trust the French evangelical councillors, but since they were offering far more for Boulogne than the regular French ambassadors, he communicated their overture to Henry VIII privately.21 Henry took the bait. On 20 December 1545, he instructed Paget to make a counteroffer to Francis I via Sturm. Henry would renounce all pensions, debts, and money payments owed to England, if Francis would allow Henry to keep Boulogne, stop supporting the Scots, and break with Rome, for which he would have Henry’s support. He told Paget to argue to Sturm that should Francis reject these terms (which were ridiculously high) the Protestants would know the French were not serious about rejecting the pope. Henry was reaching and he knew it. In the event Francis refused to grant him Boulogne, Henry told Paget to accept Sturm’s terms: Sturmius is to be pressed earnestly in this, seeing that it contains almost nothing but what was proposed by himself and by La Planche, from the Queen of Navarre and Madame Destampes.22

Barring a full peace treaty, Henry would even settle for a truce. Having enticed the English king to negotiate in earnest, madame d’Étampes was eventually able to convince Francis to offer the terms devised by the evangelicals. The articles of the Treaty of the Camp (June 1546),

and madame Destampes, and declaration of their desire to bring about peace; for, if those who wrought to join their King with the Emperor prevailed, they who were against the Pope were ruinated, and if they could compass as peace, these Papists (the Admiral, Turnon, and the Secretary) “be sent to the Devil headlong.” [While discussing the terms for Boulogne] Laplanche wished that Boulloyn were bulla in mari, since both Princes insisted on having it and this peace was France’s only hope of deliverance from the tyranny of Rome . . . and thought that the Emperor tossed the ball both to France and England and would end by deceiving both; that embassy [French to emperor] was sent because hope was given of better success, but Longueval had got them revoked and Madame Destampes prayed Paget (if she might put the King in hope of Boulloyn) to command her, and thought when peace was made there might be an interview’ . . . [Paget then proposed unacceptable terms to Laplanche, but] he allowed that Sturmius had told him somewhat (and recited the overture). “If Madame Destampes,” quoth Laplanche, “can bring the King to that, she will think herself the happiest woman in the world.” ’ Letters and Papers 20, pt. 2, no. 942, 469–470. 21 Paget to Henry VIII, 15 December 1545, from Calais, Letters and Papers 20, pt. 2, no. 984, 483–487. This long report details the complex maneuvering at court, which resulted, despite the ‘papalist’ councillors’ opposition, in Francis I allowing madame d’Étampes to send La Planche, Sturm, and Bruno to offer a much more attractive package to Henry. 22 Henry VIII to Paget, 20 December 1545, Letters and Papers 20, pt. 2, no. 1011, 502.

510

chapter eleven

which ended the war, followed those advanced by the evangelicals in November–December 1545.23 The proposed three-way religious and military alliance, however, was left hanging. During the autumn of 1546, the court evangelicals repeatedly sent a secret messenger, La Planche, to remind the English of Marguerite and madame d’Étampes’ overture for a larger religious union. Wotton reported to Paget, who was now in England on the receiving end of diplomatic dispatches, that La Planche had said that for the glory of God and increase of love between our masters, he [Longueval] desired the French king to reject the Bishop of Rome, and the thing was easy, for Madame d’Étampes desired it and felt sure of it if she might have the king’s [Henry VIII’s] assistance.24

Wotton responded to Longueval that Henry had entreated the French to break with Rome in the past [1535] and would not do so again unless he was assured that Francis would accept. La Planche insisted that the time was ripe, but that evangelicals at court could not propose the matter themselves; the overture must come from Henry: If Madame d’Estampes might assure the French king that the king [Henry] would continue [to be] his friend she will not fail . . . for the Bishop of Rome has of late so pricked the French king that he will easily give ear to it.

Paget dismissed this offer of religious concord as a mere pretext to beat down the terms of the Boulogne treaty, pointing out that he knew the French were already making overtures to the Protestants.25 Paget

23 For the terms of the Treaty of the Camp, see Knecht, Renaissance Warrior, 503, who cites Letters and Papers 21, pt. 1, no. 1014. 24 For this and the following quotation, Letters and Papers 21, pt. 2, no. 248, 117. 25 Paget to Wotton, 19 October 1546, Winsor: “the manner of breaking this overture indicates a practice to recover Boulogne before the day appointed by the treaty, and it is not convenient that Paget, who was a minister to make the treaty yesterday should be a minister to-morrow to alter it, nor will the King like the motion, “it” being the key wherewith he keeps locked the door of his good brother’s friendship; for we know that the French King has already made means to enter in League with the Protestants, who will not agree thereto unless he forsake the Bishop of Rome, and to come to the point now, as if to please us, and expect some reciproke from us, is a proceeding which Paget cannot like; and a meeting between the Princes before the matters in question are concluded might only breed less friendship. “If Monsr. Longuevale think it good that means be made to take away jealousies, we have a debt owing us, we have a pension viager due to us and a perptual pension due to the posterity, and claims and titles are not clearly out of the book, and these be matters to work upon in my fantasy; and these be the same that Laplanche and I devised on at Calais, wherein, and all other things that I may honestly and with discharge of my duty towards my master and country,

secret diplomacy and religious dissimulation, –

511

meant by this that, since Francis was not going to get anywhere with the Protestants if he was not willing to break with Rome, there was no need for English pressure. Paget was partially correct. The emperor was preparing for war with the Protestant powers, whose future was in grave doubt. In response to the Schmalkaldic League’s proposal of a three-way league between themselves, England, and France, Francis I and his conservative councillors were demanding, outrageously, Boulogne and the Imperial crown as the price for French aid. Obviously, these terms were unacceptable to both the English and the Protestants. In November 1546, the French evangelicals could but repeat their secret pleas: it was only Henry who could induce Francis to break. They made no mention of changing the treaty for Boulogne, only of establishing an offensive-defensive alliance against the emperor. Indeed, as the situation in Germany grew dangerously worse for the Schmalkaldic League, the evangelicals gave up on their broader goal of a military and religious alliance in order simply to aid their “brothers” in Germany. Cardinal Du Bellay told Wotton, “unless the Protestants are succored, the game is up for the evangelical cause (actum est de negocio Evangelii).”26

I will be glad to put to my hand to the best of my power, for the continuance of the amity between both the Majesties.” Letters and Papers 21, pt. 2, no. 289, 136–137. 26 There seems to have been some disagreement among Francis’s evangelical councillors about the priority of forming a military league and of inducing Francis to break with Rome. From December 1545 to October 1546, Marguerite, madame d’Étampes, and Longueval had coupled these items, giving priority to an Anglo-French alliance based on France joining England in rejecting Rome that was to be secured by a meeting of the two kings. By November, Du Bellay preferred succoring the greatly endangered German Protestants immediately. He evidently felt it would take too long to achieve a French break with Rome. As Wotton reported to Paget on 28 November 1546 from ‘Chauny’: “Has since spoken with the Cardinal of Belay (gives a cipher to represent his name in future) who made a long tale of this affection to this amity and thought the time come to make it straiter, as the Protestants needed help and his master had answered them that he would make a league with them if the King would; if thus leagued together, Belay thought they need fear no one, and unless the Protestants were succored actum est de negocio Evangelii. The Cardinal goes not directly to the rejecting of the Bishop of Rome, but says that that must follow this league. Wotton replied that the French King would doubtless advertise the King of the matter, and they would act therein as expedient. Had a long conversation, in which Wotton said that had the Protestants been content with reason they might have been in league with us. The Cardinal replied that they durst not, because of the French threats [in the articles of Crépy], and therefore they demanded what they knew the King would not grant. The man shows himself earnest for the gospel and anxious about the end of matters in Germany.” Letters and Papers 21, pt. 2, no. 457, 214–216.

512

chapter eleven

As late as December 1546, the duchess d’Étampes was still promising that she could induce Francis I to break with Rome, so long as the suggestion came from Henry wrapped in an offer of full cooperation against the emperor. Henry was reluctant. To his death in January 1547 he tried rather to hinder an already shaky Franco-Protestant entente. Meanwhile, Francis told the Protestants that he would do as Henry VIII did. Thus, no grand anti-Hapsburg, anti-papal league was formed at the eleventh hour. The best that the French evangelical courtiers could manage was to induce Francis to provide covert funds to the members of the Schmalkaldic league in December 1546, well after the tide of battle had turned against them. On 31 December, Wotton reported from the French court that Protestant envoys were departing from France towards England having been gratified with “more than fair words” and noted that “The Queen of Navarre is sent for, and therefore the Protestants’ matter is likely to prosper.”27 This last gasp of evangelical diplomacy, always highly risky and improbable given the sharp divisions among Francis I’s advisors, ended with his death in March 1547. Henry II’s palace revolution swept the evangelicals from court.28 Several conclusions can be drawn from this reconstruction of the French evangelical courtiers’ activities that point to both the seriousness of their plans as well as the unlikelihood they would ever succeed. First, their ultimate goal to have Francis I break with Rome was hugely ambitious and would have entailed a hotly contested religious reorientation in France. Given the risks involved, they were extremely secretive, making their overtures to England and the Protestants outside the normal channels of French diplomacy. Second, the English were understandably reluctant to entertain such tenuous offers until they

27 Wotton to Paget: ‘The Queen of Navarre is sent for, and therefore the Protestants’ matter is likely to prosper. The Protestants have had their answer and are shortly departing towards you, only telling Wotton that the answer was good. They are reported to have declared the danger to all princes if the Protestants are overtrodden, the Emperor’s intent being manifest; and to have had answer that the French king had made a confederacy with the King of England and would do as that King did. This the ambassadors misliked not, but pointed out their present necessity, seeing Duke Moryce’s attempt in Saxony and the Emperor’s reinforcing his army under Mons. de Buren now, when it was thought that war should cease for the winter. What answer they have had thereupon Wotton cannot learn, but supposes that it was better than fair words.’ Letters and Papers 21, pt. 2, no. 648, 214–216. 28 Thereafter, the new king would aid the German Protestants (and profit by it), even though a religious compact was never in question. See Brady, Protestant Politics, 359–362; and Bonney, The European Dynastic States, 124–126.

secret diplomacy and religious dissimulation, –

513

proved to be unimpeachably profitable. Ironically, Henry VIII may not even have favored Francis breaking with Rome.29 Third, French evangelicals claimed that they could induce Francis to reject Rome not as the basis for, but as the much-desired consequence of an alliance with England and the Protestants. For the English, the French evangelicals’ protestation of religious brotherhood was more a red herring than good bait, since this issue was quite superfluous to settling the immediate military issues. A religious compact, however, as the Protestant envoys had always argued, was key to a firm offensive and defensive alliance with them against the emperor, to which the evangelical party equally hoped to attract Henry and thereby Francis. The French evangelicals were, therefore, trying to bring three powers together with very different agendas in which the issue of religious concord ranged from being superfluous to essential. The evangelical party’s plans never succeeded for a number of reasons. One stumbling block, seemingly as central and insoluble as the Eucharist debate, was Francis I’s quest for the lost lands of Milan and Boulogne. Continual defeat or stalemate on the battlefield kept forcing him to seek the help of foreign powers, by turns from the emperor, Rome, England, or the Schmalkaldic League, in order to regain them. For evangelicals, this need occasioned promising but ever tricky opportunities. It made Francis amenable at times to alliances with ‘heretical’ powers, yet such powers always, and rightly, suspected his motives when French evangelicals proposed that they could move the king beyond strategic posturing to wholeheartedly embrace an anti-papal league. The evangelicals appear, nevertheless, to have been sincere in their efforts to use these political alliances of convenience to leverage a fuller reformation 29 The evangelicals’ appeal to have Henry VIII help them induce Francis I to break with Rome and join with the Protestants likely fell on deaf ears. J. J. Scarisbrick argues that Henry’s goal during 1546 was to secure the Protestants for himself to the exclusion of the French lest their troops be used against him. He admits that there is much confusion over the direction of English policy at this time, and cites a half dozen plausible interpretations of Henry’s intentions which have since been advanced. Given Paget’s constant skepticism about the possibility that Francis I would break with Rome, Scarisbrick is probably correct that Henry was no friend to the idea of France and the Protestants uniting. See J. J. Scarisbrick, Henry VIII (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968), 465–470, esp. 467 and n. 5. Similarly, Potter cogently argues that Henry VIII had no grand strategy, but rather sought to gain the maximum profit and honor from his foreign policy. Keeping his options open and other powers divided were key to making his designs succeed. D. L. Potter, “Foreign Policy,” in The Reign of Henry VIII: Politics, Policy and Piety, ed. Diarmaid MacCulloch, Problems in Focus Series (Houndsmill and London: MacMillan Press, 1995), 106, 110, 118, and 133.

514

chapter eleven

in France. They pursued these plans both when French policy was favorable to Rome and the emperor as well as when the political winds were at their back, beyond the point they succeeded in brokering marriages of convenience that achieved Francis I’s strategic objectives. In sum, a religious concord was never necessary for the French court to build a basic working relationship with England or the Protestant powers of the Empire, either during Francis I’s reign or that of his son. Yet evangelical courtiers pushed French policy towards that goal, since strong relationships with those powers would promote the evangelical cause at home by binding Francis’s dynastic ambitions to those powers outside the realm which shared their religious sensibilities, or at least concurred that the emperor was hypocrisy and the pope the devil. Failed Diplomacy and Domestic Damage Control Perhaps the best way to assess the seriousness of the foreign policy overtures of the self-acclaimed evangelicals at court is to inquire how they used their power in the domestic spheres over which they had greater control. Given the present state of scholarship, no full survey is possible, though there are some telling examples for the Du Bellays30 and rather less evidence for madame d’Étampes or her ‘creature,’ Longueval. The figure upon whom this study concentrates, Marguerite of Navarre, measures up rather well on the test of her domestic politics. In 1540, Martin Luther called on her, “to testify about Christ before kings,” and to protect ministers of the word, to promote the cause of Christ, and to defend other devout confessors of the truth . . . so that God’s word and truth may spread as widely as possible among the churches of France and the kingdom of France may truly be called and upheld as most Christian.31

Luther’s idealized list of duties matches her actual deeds. As to protecting ministers, her early support of evangelicals has been noted. 30 On the Du Bellay brothers’ patronage of a large number of evangelical writers, see the works by V.-L. Bourrilly cited in chapter 9, note 5. 31 WA Br 9, no. 3565, 299–301; 301, 23–35: “. . . optatius sit, . . . ut Vestra Celsitudo . . . pergat confiteri constanter christum et filia Regum in Honorem filii dei Christi et summi domini loqui de verbo et Testimoniis dei coram regibus, fovere ministros verbi, provehere negocium christi et reliquos pios confessores veritatis defendere. . . . Orabimus pro inclyto regno Galliae, vt deus Vestram Celsitudinem servet et stabiliat ac . . . ut in Ecclesiis Galliae Verbum et Veritas Dei quam latissime propagetur, ut regnum Galliae vere christianissimi titulum agnoscere et tueri posset.”

secret diplomacy and religious dissimulation, –

515

From the mid-1530s on, she advanced several protégés, whom, despite well-deserved doubts about their orthodoxy, she managed to have promoted to high ecclesiastical posts, including Jean Du Bellay, her almoner, Gérard Roussel, and Antonio Caracciolo, the eventual bishop and Reformed minister of Troyes.32 Others whom she championed in the 1520s and 1530s, and would later criticize as “maskers in red caps,” such as Cardinals François de Tournon, the first major patron of the Jesuits in France, and Georges d’Armagnac, the reforming bishop of Rodez, became pillars of the Catholic and Counter-Reformations in the kingdom.33 As to protecting ‘devout confessors,’ she was never able to convince her brother after 1536 to allow freer religious expression, especially via evangelical preaching. Nevertheless, she seems to have tried. In 1540, while condemning Sacramentarians to her brother, she reminded him of her view that the 1534 Placards was a devious plot hatched by conservatives who unleashed the ensuing persecution. To compensate for her failure to sway Francis to rein in the conservatives or even to promote evangelical preaching, Marguerite sought to short-circuit the court’s pursuit of heretics. A notable setback came in 1538, when the Dominican whom she had installed as inquisitor at Toulouse went to the stake for heterodox views. In the early 1540s, she claimed royal privilege and set free several religious detainees at Bordeaux. Further, she successfully appealed to Francis to lessen the severity of sentencing statutes governing religious crimes. He went so far as to require any future heresy indictments against Marguerite’s servants to be evoked to his Grand Conseil, where, as in the past, she could obtain leniency. In sum, the evangelical faction’s diplomacy and Marguerite’s domestic efforts indicates that their idea of a reformed Gallican church more closely resembled those of the princes of Germany than the “Devil” in Rome. The chances of inducing Francis to make that march, however, were never great because of factors beyond their control. If evangelical diplomacy failed on the international front, there were perpetual battles to be waged at home. Since religious persecution intensified

32 Marguerite had Caracciolo installed as a canon at Saint-Victor (Paris) in 1538. See Driart, 169. Jean Du Bellay ordained him priest the following year. He did not become bishop or Troyes until 1551. For Caracciolo’s career see the article in Dictionnaire d’histoire et géographie ecclésiastiques, ed. A. Baudrillart et seq. Paris: Letouzey, 1912–. 33 For d’Armagnac’s tenure as an active and able bishop, see Nicole Lemaître, Le Rouergue flamboyant.

516

chapter eleven

when conservatives were ascendant at court, it can be argued that the evangelical party’s diplomacy dulled its edge, and that this in turn gave some cover enabling the broad currents of evangelicalism to spread. This assertion is born out in the careers of Claude Baduel, rector of the University of Nîmes, and Gérard Roussel, Marguerite’s almoner and closest spiritual advisor.

Building Evangelical Institutions: Claude Baduel and Gérard Roussel Marguerite, Claude Baduel, and the University of Nîmes The story of Marguerite’s involvement with Claude Baduel and the University of Nîmes is a clear example of how she tried to spread the evangelical movement through established institutions. Previously, at Bourges in her duchy of Berry, Marguerite had hired several famous legal professors to staff the university there and installed several prelates who helped to foster a local evangelical group.34 Many students, such as Theodore Beza and John Calvin, were introduced to evangelical ideas by these men. In the late 1530s and 1540s, Marguerite contributed to a similar development in Nîmes. Claude Baduel was recommended three times to Marguerite as a promising young scholar whose heart was in the right place, first by Philipp Melanchthon in 1534 and then twice by Martin Bucer in 1537 and 1538.35 In 1537, the town council of Nîmes asked for Marguerite’s help in elevating their Latin school into a university.36 She took up their cause, and by 1540, with her brother’s help, she managed to have University of Nîmes established with Claude Baduel as its first rector. Meanwhile, she forced six local bishops to contribute annual incomes of 200 l.t. each to support the school. In 1542, she obtained confirmation of the school’s foundation from the pope.

34

See chapter 2, notes 87 and 90. See Jourda, Répertoire, nos. 597, 671, and 774. 36 For this letter and the following events see Jourda, Répertoire, nos. 792, 796, 826, 893 and Saulnier 1972, nos. 646.2, 646.3, 685.1, 685.2, 883.1. 35

secret diplomacy and religious dissimulation, –

517

Baduel led an embattled existence at Nîmes during the 1540s.37 He was the linchpin of an extended network of evangelicals in the region, including local notables and artisans as well as learned men as far away as Toulouse. This role involved him in a series of conflicts at Nîmes as well as in the trials of friends across the region, such as that of a local shoemaker named Morlet, who was indicted for heresy at Toulouse, and of René Gasne, whose uncle-in-law, Guillaume Pellicier, bishop of Montpellier, wanted to prosecute him for crimes against religion.38 From 1547 to 1550, as the representative of brethren in the region, Baduel wrote frequently to John Calvin, with whom he had become friends during his stay in Strasbourg. To round out this sketch of Baduel’s leadership, on 26 May 1549 he recommended one of his promising students as a suitable ‘minister’ to a bishop in the entourage of Marguerite of Navarre at Nérac. The unnamed prelate most likely was Gérard Roussel.39 To him Baduel lauds the student’s morals and his zeal for the church of Christ, saying that he was fleeing to Nérac because he was being persecuted on account of the name of Christ, which to him was most dear. Baduel ranks him among those few truly inflamed by a love and zeal for Christ and his true church, a man well suited to be one of its ministers. My reverend father, last year when you were at Nîmes with the queen of Navarre, I recommended to you the present letter carrier . . . . And so, having been preserved for this day by the Lord, who watches over the circumstances and affairs of all holy men, he is now fleeing to you after having endured the greatest persecution in the name of Him whose glory he desires above all things. Moreover, considering the extreme scarcity of such ministers, one ought eagerly to embrace a man of his probity and an opportunity like this. Therefore, considering your established custom, your exemplary benevolence, and your ordained authority, you will make sure that the church of Christ does not forgo the efforts of so faithful a person which this age so desperately needs. . . . I know him to be a good

37 Mattieu-Jules Gaufrès has written a fine study on Baduel’s career. The following will concentrate on some important moments and letters from his Nîmes years. See Mattieu-Jules Gaufrès, Claude Baduel et la réforme des études au XVIe siècle (Paris: Hachette, 1880). 38 Gaufrès, Claude Baduel, 205–208 and 211 ff. For Baduel’s letter on behalf of Morlet, see BPF MS 186/1 & 186/2, Transcription des principaux fragments d’un manuscrit, contenant des lettres et des discours de Cl. Baduel (Numéros d’ordre dans le ms. d’Avignon),” nos. 1, 5, 6, 7, 29 and 83, and on behalf of Gasné, nos. 4, 84, 85, and 86. 39 Gaufrès does not make much of this letter.

518

chapter eleven and moderate man, completely inspired by an incredible love and zeal for Christ and his church.40

This letter, from one member of Marguerite’s network to another, is a striking example of what appears to have been an informal system for the formation and placement of evangelical ministers within the established church. Baduel describes the candidate as faithful, avid for the glory of God, inspired by love and zeal for Christ and his church, and, in short, as one of the rare breed of true ministers of the gospel. From the pen of Baduel or in the ear of a bishop close to Marguerite, such phrases meant that such a man was an evangelical who shared their desire for the advancement of the church of Christ. In the eighty plus letters that remain from Baduel’s correspondence from the years 1548 to 1550, there are many other examples in which he seeks positions for students and colleagues as teachers, who would

40 BPF MS 186/1, fol. 24v–25v. “Ep. 38 [Numéros d’ordre dans le ms. d’Avignon]. Neraco, prélat ami de la Reine de Navarre, a qui Baduel recommande un ecclésiastique luthérien. 26 Mai, [1549].” “C. B. Neraco R. P. [Reverende Pater] S. P. D. [Salutem plurimam dicit.]: Anno superiore cum tu Nemausum cum Re.[Regina] Navarrae venisses istum tibi commendavi. Sed cum tardius ad te fuisset deductus et Reg.[Reginam] praesentatus factum est in subita vestra decessione [25r] ut neque ego tibi diligentius commendare atque in tuam fidem pietatemque tradere potuerim neque tu eum ita cognoscere ut ipsius dignitas postulabat. Nam hujuscemodi res postea ei acciderunt ut cum maximopere cuperet tamen nec vobiscum loqui nec vos Avenionem proficiscentes consequi potuerit. Itaque ad istud tempus reservatus a Domino qui tempora negotiaque sanctorum moderatur ad te nunc confugit multa perpessus nomine illius cujus gloriae est cupidiss[imus] in summa autem paucitate talium ministrorum desideranda est hujus modi opportunitas atque integritas. Quare pro tua consuetudine summaque charitate et authoritate dabis operam ne Ecclesia Christi opera istius tam fideli et necessaria hoc tempore carere videatur id que ut facies te etiam atque etiam rogo. Ego quia istum virum bonum et moderatum singularique Christi ejusque ecclesiae studio et amore inflammatum plane cognovi. Propterea non dubitavi opinionis meae testimonium ei apud te dare. Tu pro tuo ingenio plura majora que in eo reperies quam ego possim aut animadvertere aut his meis [25v] literis declarare. Bene vale Praesul Re. [Reginae] Nemausi xxvi maii.” The prelate whom Baduel addressed is likely one of two people. It may have been Charles de Pisseleu, brother of the duchess d’Étampes, bishop of Condom, in whose diocese Nérac was situated. “Il est nommé en 1544, à l’évêché de Condom, par l’autorité de Marguerite, pendant la période même, cruciale, . . . de la présente étude,” Causse, “Familière Exposition,” 6. The parlement would pursue him and Tristan de Bizet, bishop of Saintes after 1550 for being lax in the pursuit of heretics. However, the addressee is more likely Gérard Roussel, who was abbot of Clairac, which is near Nérac, seat of Marguerite’s power. He habitually attended her court and traveled with her. He also had had connections with the German evangelical circles in which Baduel traveled before he settled in France and become rector of Nîmes. It was certainly not the bishop of Agen, the cardinal of Lorraine.

secret diplomacy and religious dissimulation, –

519

serve as lay ministers to the local evangelical community, which is exactly the role he fulfilled at the University of Nîmes.41 In addition, Baduel’s correspondence from these years shows that he had a close relationship with a network of evangelical notables in the south of France as well as Protestant leaders in Switzerland and the Empire, including Calvin, Marthurin Cordier (formerly of Bordeaux) at Lausanne, and Philipp Melanchthon. It is striking that, despite his description of Marguerite to Melanchthon as having become “less a support for us than she used to be,” he could still count on her aid. When in 1549 he started exploring the possibility of taking refuge in Switzerland, he told a friend that she would recommend his candidacy for a post at the Academy of Lausanne.42 That friend was Jacques de Renaud, seigneur d’Alen, who had previously offered his services to Calvin and sent his son to study at Lausanne. When Renaud died the following year, Baduel spread the word in southern France, and notably to Marthurin Cordier at Lausanne, that the faithful had lost one of the major pillars of their communities, one who while he was under “this our most pitiful slavery and oppression, longed for the most beloved tabernacle of the Lord and desired to follow your most holy church.”43 Baduel’s letters offer a brief glimpse into the activities of the network linked to Marguerite, which, unfortunately, are for the most part lost from sight. Nevertheless, they suggest that Marguerite had quite consciously promoted the University of Nîmes in order, at least in part, to train evangelical ministers, some of whom went on to aid in the reform of her territories in Béarn. Bishop Gérard Roussel’s Evangelical Reform at Mid-Century Gérard Roussel, the likely recipient of Baduel’s letter of recommendation cited above, was the most important spiritual leader in Marguerite’s entourage from 1526 until her death in 1549. His career as bishop of

41

See BPF MS 186/1 and 186/2; and Gaufrès, Claude Baduel, passim. Claude Baduel to Reginaldo (Renaud d’Alen), 1549, on Baduel’s “projet de départ pour la Suisse:” “Ea in re me etiam Regina Navarrae sua authoritate et commendatione iuavaret.” BPF MS 186/1, no. 21, fols. 18r–19r. 43 Claude Baduel to Petro Cassoleto [Marthurin Cordier] at Lausanne, 1550. “Tu noveras hominem singulari praeditum pietate ac charitate qua perpetuo in hac miserrima servitute nostra atque oppressione ad tabernacula domini amabilissima suspirabat sanctissimamque ecclesiam vestram desiderabat.” BPF MS 186/1, no. 90, fols. 53v–55r. 42

520

chapter eleven

Oloron from 1536 to 1555 is an important test case for the late stages of the French evangelical movement. Marguerite protected Roussel after his participation in the failed reform at Meaux, appointing him as her almoner, personal confessor, and court preacher:44 a close relationship that appears never to have wavered. In Paris during the Lenten seasons of 1533 and 1534, Roussel’s popular sermons helped to ignite and sustain the year and a half long battle between the Faculty of Theology and evangelicals for the hearts of Parisians. Marguerite secured his release when Roussel landed under house arrest. Roussel eventually retreated with Marguerite to her southern territories. Despite his unflattering résumé, Marguerite convinced the Roman Curia to name him coadjutor to the see of Oloron in 1534, to which he was promoted in 1536, making his official entry in 1539.45 About his career as bishop there exist several reports that depict him as an active prelate, setting up schools, teaching students, preaching frequently, holding synods, caring for the poor, and helping to lead the religious life of Marguerite’s court.46 Roussel should have been able, there in Béarn if ever, to implement the evangelical reform hoped for earlier. Late in his career, Roussel composed two works entitled Familiere exposition and Forme de visite de diocese.47 The Familiere exposition explains in dialogue form the Apostles’ Creed, the Ten Commandments, 44 A. Durengues, “Gérard Roussel, abbé de Clairac, évêque d’Oloron,” Revue de l’Agenais 43 (1916), 340–362; 343. 45 Durengues, “Gérard Roussel,” 353. Roussel was only admitted into his church 24 January 1539. The chapter of Oloron had put up a rival to Roussel. He overcame these obstacles on 29 March 1539. Durengues cites Menjoulet, Chronique du diocèse et du pays d’Oloron (1869), 41, as in note 51 below. 46 See Charles de Sainte-Marthe, Oraison funèbre de la reine de Navarre, 1550 (Latin and French), reprinted in Marguerite de Navarre, Heptaméron, ed. Anatole de Montaiglon (Paris: Eudes, 1880), 231 ff.; Florimond de Raemond, L’histoire de la naissance, progrez, et decadence de l’hérésie de ce siècle, divisee en huict livres (Rouen: J. Berthelin, 1623 [1st edition, Paris: Charles Chastellain, 1605]), bk. 7, ch. 3, 849–851; Charles Schmidt, Gérard Roussel: Prédicateur de la reine Marguerite de Navarre. Mémoire, servant à l’histoire des premières tentatives faites pour introduire la Réforme en France (Strasbourg, 1845; repr. Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1970), passim; A. Degret, “L’évêque d’Oloron, G. Roussel et la curie romaine,” Revue de Gascogne (1904), 227–228; and Durengues, “Gérard Roussel,” 345–359. 47 The full titles of these works are, Familiere exposition du symbole, de la loy et o*-raison domincale, en forme de colloque, which is a discussion between a Maître and his Disciple, and the Forme de visite de diocese, which is a small treatise. They are extant in only one manuscript, BnF F.fr. 419. The Familiere exposition will be cited hereafter as FE, with manuscript foliation. These passages are based on collating two transcriptions, one an anonymous typescript kindly supplied by André Godin and the

secret diplomacy and religious dissimulation, –

521

and the Lord’s Prayer. Had it been published, as Roussel wished, it would have counted among the two dozen or so catechetical expositions of the symbols of the faith that were printed in French during the years 1520–1550.48 Roussel’s text remained in manuscript because the Faculty of Theology of Paris condemned a version of this work in 1550.49 The second work is, as its title advertises, a diocesan visitation manual. Together, these texts contain the evangelical doctrine and the revised orthopraxy that Roussel ostensibly inculcated in his diocese. Regrettably, the episcopal records for Oloron in this period are lost, preventing an assessment of the full scope and impact of his program. However, court records and chroniclers register that Roussel was implementing this program. Significantly, the same issues stressed in his visitation manual kept provoking local conservative Catholics to attack Roussel: namely, his reform of the cult of the saints, confession, and more obliquely, indulgences. After sketching the political environment in which Roussel operated, the principles of Roussel’s reform program will be analyzed, concentrating, in particular, on his visitation manual. This juxtaposition of context and text shows that Roussel believed his fideist theology would renew the cult and promote unity at a time when, as he recognized, schism threatened. With this promise of unity, he sought to make his program acceptable to the state-building projects of his secular lord, Henri d’Albret. The Béarn of Henri d’Albret, King of Navarre In 1534, when Marguerite of Navarre promoted Roussel’s candidacy, she needed the agreement of her husband, Henri d’Albret, for Oloron was one of two bishoprics in his sovereign territory of Béarn.50 Like many contemporary princes, Henry had undertaken an ambitious campaign other in Paul J. Landa’s Ph.D. thesis, as cited in note 69. The two interlocutors of the FE will be signaled as “M.” and “D.” when necessary. 48 See Francis M. Higman, “Theology for the Layman in the French Reformation 1520–1550,” The Library, 6th ser., 9 (1987): 105–127. 49 Had they seen the version preserved in BnF F.fr. 419, they would have been more incensed. It has additional, demonstrably heterodox, material on faith and works and the two sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Nor would his second work in this manuscript, the Forme de visite de diocese, have pleased them. 50 Oloron extended across Henri d’Albret’s sovereign territory of Béarn into those lands that he ruled in fief or as governor with his wife, Marguerite d’Angoulême, on behalf of her brother Francis I.

522

chapter eleven

of state building. In his government, the territory’s ecclesiastical lords were key figures: by law the bishop of Lescar presided over the Estates of Béarn, the bishop of Oloron seconded him, and they along with several abbots sat on the king’s Privy Council. Henri’s most important officer was Roussel’s senior colleague, Jacques de Foix, bishop of Lescar. His signature appears on many edicts that strengthened Henri’s government.51 He drew up complete lists of the feudal dues owed to the crown, exacted them, and published for the first time in 1552 the customary law code of Béarn. Jacques de Foix’s actions as a leading prelate in Béarn complemented his role in government. As bishop of Oloron and later of Lescar, de Foix published two breviaries: one for Oloron with a special rite for the region’s patron, Saint Grat, the other dedicated to the Virgin Mary. In Oloron, he created an episcopal chancery in the important Basque city of Mauléon and published the statues of the diocese in 1529.52 In Lescar, he imposed the rule of St. Augustine on his cathedral canons.53 Notably, as Henri d’Albret issued a series of edicts against heresy, Jacques de Foix enforced them by bringing sectarians to trial.54 Finally, in 1552, the bishop of

51 According to Abbé Menjoulet, Foix oversaw “la réformation générale du domaine, commencée dès l’an 1538.” He notes that Foix was an active member of government as well as a reforming, resident bishop well before this date. See J. Maximien Menjoulet, Chronique du diocèse et du pays d’Oloron (Béarn méridional et Soule), 2 vols. (Oloron: Marque, 1864 and 1869), vol. 2, 38, 43, 54–55. 52 Menjoulet, Chronique, vol. 2, 38. 53 See Charles Dartigue-Peyrou, La vicomté de Béarn sous le règne de Henri II d’Albret (1517–1555), Publications de la Faculté des Lettres de l’Université de Strasbourg 67, (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1934), 453. 54 Citing, AD Pyrénées-Atlantiques B 2229, Dartigue-Peyrou quotes the key clauses of this edict in La vicomté de Béarn, 456: “Le 1er mars 1541, le vicomte s’en prend pour la première fois aux prédications de fausses doctrines qui ‘depuis quelque temps, que ce soient des prêtres, des religieux habitant un monastère ou des pères appartenant aux quatre ordres mendiants, se sont retirés et se retirent journellement dans les ‘églises des villes, lieux et villages du pays et sont soutenus dans leur attitude par la complicité des jurats de l’endroit. De plus, ces agitateurs marchent avec l’assentiment des curés et des vicaires, dans les églises de qui ils prennent la parole. Ils prêchent témérairement la doctrine qui leur plaît et certains d’entre eux agissant par ignorance, témérité ou malice scandalisent le dit peuple et le séduisent, lui inculquant diverses erreurs contraires à la loi de Dieu et à la Sainte Ecriture . . . qu’ils profanent, interprètent mal et rendent obscure. . . . Afin de lutter efficacement contre semblable danger chacun des évêques dans son diocèse chargera des personnages instruits, capables et de jugement sûr, détenir l’œil au guet dans l’intention nettement arrêtée d’éviter que le peuple chrétien n’entende prêcher nulle hérésie ou doctrine contraire à la loi de Dieu. Il appartiendra donc aux seuls prélats de n’admettre comme prédicateurs que des hommes de orthodoxie incontestable. Tous jurât et tout prêtre convaincu d’avoir contrevenu

secret diplomacy and religious dissimulation, –

523

Lescar had his 1551 synodal statutes printed at the same time as the Customs of Béarn. The statues of de Foix from 1529 and 1551 provided guidelines for the faith and the administration of the church. Notably, on the issue of doctrine, he declared that his clergy were to adhere to all the articles defined by the University of Paris since the Council of Basel, to the Ten Commandments, and to a treatise on the seven sacraments.55 In essence, over his career, Jacques de Foix integrated a typical latemedieval episcopal reform program with the project of early-modern state building. What then was Roussel’s place in this grand plan? Although Henri d’Albret supported his candidacy,56 Roussel was embattled throughout his episcopacy with the local ecclesiastical lords. The Roman curia provided him with the see in 1536,57 but he only took possession in 1539 after overcoming the cathedral chapter’s nominee.58 In 1545, the minutes of the privy council of Navarre record that Roussel complained to the king about three royal councillors, his “capital enemies,” who

à ces prescriptions sera frappé d’une amende égale à dix fois le montant d’une peine pécuniaire de la catégorie supérieure.’ ” 55 Dartigue-Peyrou, La vicomté de Béarn, 454: “Non content d’avoir amorcé quelques réformes disciplinaires dans le bréviaire de 1541, l’évêque de Lescar prit d’importantes décisions dans les ‘constitutions synodales’ de 1552. En vertu de ce règlement, les futurs prêtres durent adhérer aux articles de foi prescrits par l’Université de Paris lors du concile de Bâle, admettre les dix préceptes du décalogue et le traité sur les sept sacrements de l’église. De plus, ces récipiendaires promirent de ne jamais abandonner le sacerdoce, de s’abstenir de tout blasphème et de s’attacher à conserver perpétuellement les donations, prébendes, chapellenies et autres bénéfices ecclésiastiques.” In addition, he repeated the canonical statutes requiring that clerics take orders in a timely fashion, that priests remain resident in their parishes fulfilling their duty to instruct the people, and that the laity abstain from touching church revenues. 56 See the memoir of 1535 signed by Henri to his agent at Rome to promote Roussel’s candidacy. Marguerite was likely the one who likely orchestrated the instructions. She was certainly involved, for the memoir instructs Henri’s agent to seek help from her allies in the French ambassadorial corps at Rome. Moreover, it calls for her to be informed directly should problems arise. The original is conserved in BnF MS Dupuy 153, fols. 71r–72v. The printed edition in Menjoulet, Chronique, vol. 2, 481–485, should be corrected against the manuscript since there are some poor readings and important lines missing, which bear on Marguerite’s strategy. 57 For the date of his provision with Oloron as well as his abbey at Clairac, see A. Degret, “L’évêque d’Oloron, Gérard Roussel et la curie romaine,” 227–228. 58 The rival was Gaston de Foix. He would seem to have been a local candidate (related to the bishop of Lescar?), as was typical of elections of the upper clergy of Béarn until Julius II subjected these sees to non-resident Italian cardinals. See Menjoulet, Chronique, vol. 2, 44; and Dartigue-Peyrou, La vicomté de Béarn, 445.

524

chapter eleven

had been defaming him as a heretic.59 Jean d’Escurre, a priest, and Jean de Marca had made an abusive inquiry without commission against the suppliant (Roussel) as to his religion and in several trials he (d’Escurre) had told [the council] that although the suppliant is an upstanding gentleman, he smacks of Lutheran opinions and books.

The third councillor, Martin de Poey, had libeled Roussel by spreading the rumor that the Parlement of Bordeaux had twice indicted Roussel on charges of heresy. Enraged by this falsehood, when Roussel encountered the councillor, there were: some choice and uncustomary words between them . . . and the suppliant [Roussel] was compelled to tell the other that he would be very happy to die at the same time as the forenamed de Poey.

The sixty-five-year-old bishop had some fire in his belly; to protect his honor he was willing to duel his slanderer. Henri d’Albret did silence Roussel’s enemies, but their attacks were not unfounded. In an earlier ordinance, Henri d’Albret had fulminated against disorder in the churches, “principally with regard to those in the diocese of Oloron.”60 The magistrates of Bordeaux also had their eyes on Roussel. In 1546, they cited the town of Clairac, over which Roussel ruled as abbot, as one of the chief centers of heresy in the region.61 Nevertheless, Henri d’Albret never publicly pursued Roussel as a heretic, even after Marguerite of Navarre died in December 1549. Rather, Henri’s religious policy aimed at peace. In 1546, Henri ordered that all

59 See Dartigue-Peyrou, La vicomté de Béarn, “pièces justificatives” nos. XXXVIII and XXXIX, 603–606. The first document relates to the trial of an Augustinian friar who was indicted for preaching heretically in Oloron. In it, the three men against whom Roussel complains, Mgr Jean d’Escurre, Mgr. Martin de Poey, and Jean de Marca are all cited as members of the king’s council. They also appear to have been the close collaborators of Henri’s chancellor, Jacques de Foix, in many other documents published by Dartigue-Peyrou. 60 See this particular command among the list of Henri d’Albret’s several edicts pertaining to religious affairs in Dartigue-Peyrou, La vicomté de Béarn, 489–491. 61 The record reads: “Le 13 novembre 1546, le premier président Delage a remonstré qu’il faloit donner ordre sur le fait de la foi et religion chrétienne, aussi pourveoir sur ledit fait quant aux habitants de Bergerac, Sainte-Foi, Moncaret, Clairac, lieux grandement diffamés dudit crime d’heresie,” in Jean de Métivier, Chronique du Parlement de Bordeaux, published by Arthur de Brezetz and Jules Delpit, 2 vols., Publications de la Société des Bibliophiles de Guyenne (Bordeaux: Société des Bibliophiles, 1886–1887), vol. 1, 448.

secret diplomacy and religious dissimulation, –

525

accusations for heresy to be made lawfully in notarized documents.62 False accusations would incur the same harsh penalties as heresy justly proved. Meanwhile, he enforced the church law that only ministers licensed by the bishops could give religious instruction.63 In Béarn, Roussel faced a difficult situation. While he enjoyed the support of his king, he was viewed by the chief royal officers as a wolf guarding the flock. Regrettably, none of these documents describe the nature of Roussel’s supposed heresy. However, it is clear that while he was being held responsible for the growing religious disorder, Roussel had to reckon with the standard of orthodoxy imposed by Henri d’Albret’s edicts and embodied in Jacques de Foix’s reform program. How then did Roussel articulate his program in this context? Roussel’s Reform Program Regarding Gérard Roussel’s two manuals of religious instruction, one first wants to know: Did he ever apply in practice the theology expressed

62

For the text in Béarnais, see Victor-Pierre Dubarat, ed., Documents et bibliographie sur la Réforme en Béarn et au Pays Basque, 2 vols. (Pau: Vignancour, 1900; Pau: G. Lescher-Montoué, 1904), vol. 1, 36–39. Maurice Causse argues correctly that this edict provided Roussel with the rhetorical point of departure to justify his Familiere exposition to Henri d’Albret. Causse further asserts that Roussel used obedience to the terms of the edict as a cover to inculcate heretical doctrines to his flock in a conscious act of dissembling. In the present author’s view, Roussel had a firm belief that his doctrine, however misunderstood, was the true, universal, indeed Catholic, basis for Christian life and that it was compatible with Henri d’Albret’s religious policy. For the contrary view, see Maurice Causse, “Les dissimulations de Marguerite de Navarre et l’aventure nicodémite,” BSHPF 132 (1986) 347–390; esp. 348–350 on Henri’s edict. 63 Moreover, Henri enjoined the people to live in obedience with the law of God “according to form and manner that will be committed, handed down, taught, exposed and made to be understood by the aforementioned priests, pastors, and superiors.” In particular, Henri decreed against those who met in illicit, secret gatherings to dogmatize about the faith and criticizes “the ordinances and constitutions of the holy Roman church, the customs, (and) the ceremonies observed through long usage in the churches of these dioceses.” See Dubarat, Documents, vol. 1, 37–38: “. . . habem prohibit et deffendut. . . . à totes persones privades no disputar, domatizar per las tebernes, taules publiques et en las maisons particulares, per assemblades et conventicules secretes, sus los punctz de la fee, ordenances, et constitutions de la sancte Glisie Romane, costumes, cerymonyes obvervades per long usadye en las glisies de lors diocese et sus so no mover auguns dobtes ny difficultatz per questions et disputes, los ungs ab los autres; mes habem injungit et injungim de viver en l’obedience et observance deus comandamentz de Diu, segond et en la forme et maneyre que per losd. prelatz, pastors, superiors, lors comys et deputaz los sera ensenhat, expausat et feyt entender, senhs res en revocar en dobte et no remenhs, affin que si auccuns se trobaben haber mal sentit de la fee et religion crestiana, sien punitz.”

526

chapter eleven

in these prescriptive texts? As shown above, traditional Catholics evidently saw and heard enough to indict Roussel as the region’s leading heresiarch. On the Protestant side, in the second of Calvin’s Epistolae duae (1537), the reformer attacked Roussel in all but name for becoming a bishop, billing his old friend as an archetypal Nicodemite: a variety of hypocrite who knows the true doctrine but practices the impure Catholic cult for worldly reasons. In the Familiere exposition, Roussel answers the charges of schismatic heresy and cowardly Nicodemism. On the political level, Roussel responds directly to Henri d’Albret’s state-building program and antiheresy edicts. In the preface, the bishop advertises to Henri that his teachings will alleviate the people’s ignorance, which leads to “impiety and injustice.” Thereby, God will make them obedient, which, Roussel says: I would consider a very much greater honor and benefit to you than if [God] were to make you his minister to conquer the kingdoms of the earth.64

Roussel seems to have been trying to offer some small comfort to Henri whose more modest plans to retake Spanish Navarre were always thwarted. Remarkably, on the theological level, as several scholars have suggested, Roussel’s catechetical texts share many precepts with Protestant thought including a centering, almost overwhelming, emphasis on the doctrine of justification by faith in Christ’s sole meritorious sacrifice. Paul J. Landa has demonstrated several examples of the influence of Luther and Calvin on Roussel’s theology in his 1976 dissertation, “The Reformed Theology of Gérard Roussel, Bishop of Oloron.” But did such theological dependence make Roussel a cowardly Protestant hiding under a bishop’s miter? It appears not. Roussel provides his characteristic answer to the issues of reform and schism in his discussion of the most divisive doctrinal issue of the Reformation, the Eucharist, which will be analyzed below. Anticipating those findings, while Roussel follows Calvin’s 1543 Institutes closely when explaining the sacrament and in describing a simple rite for its observance, he never rejects the traditional church because

64

“. . . que je réputerois trop plus grand honneur et bénéfice faict à vous que s’il [Dieu] vous faisoit son minister pour conquérir les royaulmes de ce monde.” BnF F.fr. 419, prefatory epistle to Henri d’Albret, “Au roy de Navarre, Mon Souverain Seigneur,” un-foliated, 2 fols.

secret diplomacy and religious dissimulation, –

527

of its corrupted Mass. He rails against “the abominations, abuses, irreverence, discords and debates” surrounding the sacrament, that are an affront to God and dangerous to souls, but he never names the specific abuses.65 Rather, Roussel calls for an end to contention: If this simplicity had been followed [namely following Christ’s words of institution without enquiring or disputing about them], there would not have been introduced the diverse opinions and discord that do great injury to the truly Christian union commanded and required by this sacrament.66

This principle, for Roussel, applied to all disputes over doctrine and practice. When one turns to the crucial issue of how Roussel put this call for renewal without schism into practice, the evidence is sparse yet telling. Both Catholic and Protestant historians from the sixteenth century report that he was an active prelate, well loved by the people.67 According to them, the bishop preached three times daily, associated

65 FE, 168v: at the end of a long argument about not altering or going beyond the words of Scripture, Roussel writes, “ ‘Vous rejectes le mandement de Dieu affin que statues vostre tradition,’ [Mk 7:9] laquelle sentence, comme la trèschrestienne et véritable, si jusques à présent eust esté receue, suyvie et pratiquée, n’y seroient les abominations, abus, irrévérences, ny les discordes et débatz que sommes contrainctz de veoir, au grand préjudice de la doctrine et gloire de Jésuchrist et du salut des ames.” 66 He begins “I indeed recommend this simplicity [namely following the words of institution] to you as that which makes one walk with confidence without turning to the right or left, without falling into dispute, which engenders and nourishes discord and does not at all edify the true union to which this sacrament tends (with the passage quoted following).” Roussel reaches this conclusion at the end of the following passage, FE, 156r: “D.: Si en toutes institutions et ordonnances est requis suyvre l’intention et parolle de l’instituteur et ordonneur d’aultant plus au présent sacrement, qui n’est de l’escholle du sens et raison humaine, mais du tout de l’escholle de foy. “M.: C’est doncques pour bien ressemble aux disciples de Pithagoras et en tout et par tout croire et s’arrester au dire du maistre, . . . sans vouloir plus oultre s’enquérir. “D.: Ceste simplicité m’est de par vous [Maître] la bien recommandée comme celle qui faict cheminer avec confiance sans se destourner ny à dextre ny à sénestre, sans tumber en disputte qui soit pour engendrer et nourrir discorde et non point édifier à vraye unyon à laquelle tend le sacrement. “M.: Si ceste simplicité eust esté suyvie, n’eussent esté introduictes les diverses opinions et discordes, au grand préjudice de l’unyon vrayement chrestienne recommandée et exigée par ce sacrement.” 67 See Charles de Sainte-Marthe, Oraison funèbre de la reine de Navarre, in Marguerite de Navarre, Heptaméron, ed. Anatole de Montaiglon (Paris: Eudes, 1880), 231 ff.; Florimond de Raemond, L’histoire de la naissance . . . de l’hérésie, bk. 7, ch. 3, 849–851; Charles Schmidt, Gérard Roussel, 119–121; and Durengues, “Gérard Roussel,” 340–362.

528

chapter eleven

other ministers in his work, taught in the local schools, and convoked synods. The most significant of these reports is Sponde’s spectacular account of Roussel’s last synod. He relates that a crowd in Mauléon expelled Roussel’s vicar-general, a former Benedictine and the future Reformed pastor at Clairac, Charles Aymérici, for having spoken against the invocation of saints and indulgences. Roussel convoked a synod at the Basque stronghold to calm the people and to explain the actions of his lieutenant. In the first session, he scandalized the clergy by suggesting that a certain number of saints’ days should be suppressed. Then, while Roussel was preaching to the laity about these matters, a local grandee took a hatchet from under his cloak and with a few stout blows chopped the pulpit down. Roussel fell ex cathedra and his men carried him away half-dead.68 The Forme de visite de diocese provides what was probably Roussel’s agenda for such a synod.69 Roussel had four main concerns for his diocese: 1) He requires above all that the clergy administer the sacraments truly and preach “the pure Word of God, (which is) the gospel that Jesus Christ commanded to be preached to every creature.”70 2) They should guide public and private prayers. 3) They should organize poor relief, “since as Christian brothers and members of one body, we [ought to] meet the needs of the indigent.”71 4) He requires priests

68

See Gallia Christiana in provincias ecclesiasticas distributa, qua series et historia archiepiscoporum, episcoporum et abbatum Franciæ vicinarumque, ditionum, ab origine eccclesiarum ad nostra tempora deducitur, 16 vols., ed. Denis de Sainte-Marthe (Paris: J. Coignard, 1715–1865), vol. 1, “Ecclesia Olorensis,” col. 1277B–1279B, which summarizes the near contemporary account of Jean de Sponde (Spondanus). More expansive treatments are in Menjoulet, Chronique, vol. 2, 58–61; and Marc Forissier, Histoire de la Réforme en Béarn, 2 vols. (Tarbes: Édit. d’Albret, 1951), vol. 1, 81. 69 The Forme de visite de diocese is found in BnF F.fr. 419, fols. 175r–179v. It has been published in Schmidt, Gérard Roussel, 226–239; and edited with note to scriptural and patristic references by Paul J[oseph] Landa in his “The Reformed Theology of Gérard Roussel, Bishop of Oloron (1536–1555), Based upon a Critical Edition of his Familiere exposition du simbole, de la loy et oraison dominicale en forme de colloque and his Forme de visite de diocese (c. 1548),” Ph.D. Thesis, Vanderbilt University, 1976, 600–610. All references are made to the manuscript folios. Landa has provided the references to Scripture. 70 “Nous doibt estre persuadé te du tout notoire que aultre parolle ne doibt estre preschée et annuncée que la pure Parole de Dieu, l’évangille que Jésuchrist a commandé estre presché à toute créature. [Mk 16:15],” Forme de visite, fol. 175r. 71 “Fault aussi adviser à l’hospitalité, si comme frères chrestiens et membres tous d’ung corps subvenons aux nécessitez des indigens,” Forme de visite, fol. 175r.

secret diplomacy and religious dissimulation, –

529

to teach the young, “since if they are not instructed, there is no great hope for the future.”72 Having announced these four principles, Roussel in fact only elaborates on two: how to preach the word of God and how to guide the life of prayer. The sacraments, poor relief, and schools receive no treatment.73 The text is as incomplete as the synod at Mauléon was truncated. On the first issue, preaching the word of God, Roussel distills for his clergy a concise statement of his soteriology. Very simply, he tells them to teach the laity to believe the Word, literally the parole, or spoken word of God, and do what it says. He sums this up in the jingle, “croire et faire,” believe and do. The laity can easily learn this since the summary of what one has to believe is contained in the articles of the faith and of what one has to do in the Ten Commandments of the law.74

Roussel explains that Scripture always assigns a priority to these concepts, which should never be mixed up: Belief must precede doing, and faith (must) precede works, with the result that a work can not be good if it is not done in faith.75

Roussel then works through a chain of topics explaining how the justice of faith differs from the justice of the law, how Jesus Christ’s perfect observance of the law completely washes away the consequences of humans’ transgression of the commandments, as well as how Christ’s justice is imputed to humans by grace through faith.

72 “Car si elle [la jeunesse] n’est point instruicte, n’y a point grand espoir pour l’advenir,” Forme de visite, fol. 175r. 73 Roussel discusses the sacraments at length in the Familiere exposition, which will be analyzed below. As to his hope for the future, Roussel’s attention to education in Clairac was noted above. In 1554, two years after Roussel had resigned from Clairac, under the leadership of his former vicar Aymérici, the students at the school that Roussel had founded were arrested for putting on a play titled: La prison de la Réformation. H. Patry, “La Réforme et le théatre en Guyenne au XVIe siècle (2e article) (Libourne, 155, [suite].—Clairac, 1554), BSHPF 51 (1902), 141–151. The article cites the trial records from the archives. 74 “Le sommaire de ce que nous debvons croire est contenu aux articles de la foy, et de ce que devons faire ès dix parolles de la loy. Parquoy povons bien appeller les articles de la foy et les dix parolles de la loy le vray sommaire et abrégé de toute l’Escripture et Parolle de Dieu, que tous chrestiens doibvent sçavoir les avoir en continuelle mémoire, là s’exercer assiduement,” Forme de visite, fol. 175r. 75 “Croire doibt précéder faire, la foy précéder l’œuvre, de sorte que l’œuvre ne peult estre bon s’il n’est faict en foy. Et là où la foy est vive, l’oeuvre tantost la suyt et accompaigne non plus ne moings que le respirer, sentir, mouvoir accompaignent l’homme vivant,” Forme de visite, fol. 175v.

530

chapter eleven

Again, here on the issue of justification as in his treatment of the Eucharist, Roussel shows his essential difference with the Protestant reformers in terms of how these shared doctrines should be applied to the reform of the church. Lest division arise by rejecting the old rites completely, Roussel articulates principles that, if followed, would purify these corrupted practices through a revivifying emphasis on faith. Roussel’s approach is evident in his teaching about the nature of works. Having clearly stated the priority of faith in the scheme of salvation, he requires his clergy to exhort the laity to do good works. He warns, however, that good works are those that God commands in the Scriptures, not those that humans propose in their particular devotions.76 Without noting any specific examples of abuses, he informs his listeners that: to be a good worker, one must withdraw to Jesus Christ . . . who causes us to love God and our neighbor as well as to do good works.77

When discussing his second theme, prayer, Roussel addresses the issue of purifying the cult even more directly. Prayer, for Roussel, is the activity that above all others allows the sinner to respond to God’s offer of redemption. Roussel wanted all the people to know the Lord’s Prayer, since it gives the penitent direct access to God.78 From this point, Roussel apologetically but aggressively sets out to reform the

76 “Et fault assiduement exhorter faire bonnes œuvres. Mais les bonnes œuvres sont celles que Dieu commande, non pointe celles que nous proposons; celles que Dieu en son Escripture approuve, non point celles que l’homme trouve bonnes; celles qui sont faictes en foy, non celles qui sont fondées en dévotion particulière; celles qui sont du vouloir et Esprit de Dieu, non celles qui sont du vouloir et esprit de l’homme,” Forme de visite, fols. 176v–177r. 77 “Pour estre bon ouvrier, se fault retirer à Jésuschrist et apprendre de luy. C’est luy qui faict les bons ouvriers, qui par foy purge noz cueurs, les embrase d’amour et de dilection, et faict que nous aymons Dieu et nostre prochain et faisons de bonnes œuvres,” Forme de visite, fol. 177r. Roussel applies his theology to practice more concretely in his discussion of the sacraments, where he describes the way to observe them correctly. As to the abuses that occur in “particular” devotions, the sacraments, and the like, Roussel never gives the specifics but he does indicate the principles by which one might identify them. However, this understanding, as will be shown below, allowed evangelicals to suppress some and transform other Catholic practices into expressions of and aids to a living faith. 78 “L’oraison composée et ordonnée par Jésuschrist, combien qu’elle soit briefve et de peu de parolles, néantmoins comprent toute oraison, comprend tout ce que pouvons et debvons requérir et demander. . . . Par ceste oraison nous donne accès su Père et nous donne hardiesse d’appeller Dieu nostre Père, nous mect la parolle en la bouche, la lettre en la main,” Forme de visite, fol. 177r–v.

secret diplomacy and religious dissimulation, –

531

cult of the saints and confession. Stressing that God is always willing to hear every sinner’s petition, Roussel warns: It would be blasphemy to say that there could be any person near to us who knows more about our indigence and is more willing to provide for it.79

Roussel immediately takes up the issue that agitated the people of Mauléon. He writes: it might seem to some that one wants to take away prayer to the saints, to take away all recourse to them and since such propositions are stirred up today and come into controversy, I will briefly tell you my opinion in the matter.80

First, Roussel affirms that it is right to praise and honor the saints. However, he warns that one should laud them according to the forms in Scripture and not at all presume to work them up from one’s head as in the past, which has been the reason many superstitions and delusions have come about.81

Specifically, rather than bending one’s knee, doffing one’s hat, or fêting the saints, to honor them truly one should love their virtues and imitate the good use they made of them. Second, Roussel attacks the practice of praying to the saints as intermediaries between penitents and God. To combat this notion, Roussel categorically de-materializes the saints in a verbal bout of iconoclasm uncommon for him. He writes:

79 “Ne fault touteffoys qu’estimons ressembler Dieu aux roys, vers lesquelz n’y a facile accès, n’est facile et aisé les aborder, mais fault vers eulx user de plusieurs et divers moyens. Car le bon Dieu est plus prest à nous exaulcer et donner que ne sommes à le prier et demander. Seroit blasphème dire qu’il y ait créature approchée de nous plus congnoissante nostre indigence, ayant meilleur vouloir d’y pourvoir et subvenir. Le tout est que foy accompaigne nostre oraison.” Forme de visite, fol. 177v. 80 “Et pource que, par telz propos, pourroit sembler à aulcuns qu’on voulsist oster la prière des sainctz, oster tout le recours à eulx, et que au jourd’huy telz propos sont agitez et viennent en controversie, je vous en diray brièvement mon advis,” Forme de visite, fol. 177v. 81 “Ainsi pour bien and deument louer les sainctz se fault retirer à l’Escripture et user des louenges de l’Escripture, non point présumer de son cerveau et de soy, en feindre comme le temps passé qu’a esté cause d’avoir introduict plusieurs superstitions et mensonges,” Forme de visite, fols. 177v–178r.

532

chapter eleven Moreover, the saints, who have died to this world, whose bodies are interred in the earth, are stripped of their individual and personal feelings. And their wishes and desires are not like ours, but united in spirit, will, and desire with their head, Jesus Christ; they want nothing other than what Jesus Christ wants, conforming themselves to his wish. They do not pray for anything or anyone other than Jesus Christ prays for. . . . For this reason, those who particularize the saints, associating them with times, places and persons, as if they were not entirely united with Jesus Christ and could have desires other than his, believe wrongly and abuse the saints. It would be good to reform such abuses and superstitions. Moreover, since they have been stripped of bodies and are not in this world to hear or see us, we cannot reach them by speaking or writing. We can have no access to them except through Jesus Christ and they can have no knowledge of our thoughts and desires except in so far as it pleases Jesus Christ to reveal such things to them.82

If this was indeed the doctrine that Roussel preached at Mauléon, one can see why he angered traditionalists. By spiriting away the saints, Roussel effectively emptied the cult of the physical and psychological proximity that had made them, Mary in particular, the chief objects of lay devotion. Moreover, if Roussel did indeed recommend suppressing a number of saints’ days, he did so contrary to the newly printed Customs of Béarn, which reaffirmed the traditional calendar of thirty-six saints’ days.83 It is important to note that Roussel’s reform would have 82 The translation renders a bit freely, “Davantage, les sainctz décédez de ce monde, les corps desquelz reposent icy en terre, sont despouillez de toutes particulières et privées affections, et n’ont leurs affections et désirs ressemblantes aux nostres, mais unys en esprit, vouloir et désir avec leur Chef Jésuchrist, ne veullent sinon ce que Jésuchrist veult, se conforment à sa prière, ne prient aultre chose que ce que Jésuchrist prie ny pour aultre. . . . Parquoy sentent mal et abusent des sainctz ceulx qui les particularisent, les allient aux temps, lieux et personnes, comme si parfaictement n’estoient unyz avec Jésuchrist et avoient aultre voulloir que Jésuchrist. Et seroit bon reformer telz abuz et superstitions. “Au surplus, puis qu’ilz sont despouillez de corps, qu’ilz ne sont en ce monde pour nous ouyr et veoir, que n’avons accez à eulx par parolle ny escripture, n’ayans ouye corporelle pour ouyr, ny veue pour veoir, ne pouvons avoit accès à eulx que par Jésuchrist, ne pouvans congnoistre noz désirs et intentions sinon aultant qu’il plaist à Jésuchrist leur en manifester,” Forme de visite, fol. 178v. 83 See the “Fêtes et jours fériés arrêtés par le nouveau For” in Dartigue-Peyrou, La vicomté de Béarn, “pièce justificatives” no. XXXIV, 596. Scholars have rightly pointed out that, as elsewhere, in Béarn the number of Saints days to be celebrated was a vitally important economic question as well as a religious one. The new for, tried to alleviate the burden on those transporting goods to market posed by the prohibition against working on holy days by explicitly exempting them from all penalties. While merchants might suffer under the regulations, the lower orders of the clergy, those who lived without benefices, survived mainly off of the revenues they received for saying masses during the holy days.

secret diplomacy and religious dissimulation, –

533

changed many aspects of society, including the rituals of corporate piety, the rhythm of work and rest, and, not least, the economic lives of mass priests, merchants, and day laborers.84 Roussel’s discussion of prayer leads on, quite naturally, to the sacrament of confession. He first affirms that the Lord’s Prayer serves as the “sovereign remedy” for sinners. Borrowing from the imagery of indulgences, he advertises that it only costs the effort of praying faithfully to obtain God’s pardon, the ‘good note’ (i.e., letter of indulgence), which he extends to the sinner. Roussel continues the comparison, saying, “This bull . . . is certain and (coming) from our grand master, pontiff, and pope, Jesus Christ, we can and must hold to it with assurance.”85 If nothing worse, with regard to papal indulgences, Roussel was guilty of the old-fashioned sin of impertinence. Where, then, does auricular confession to a minister fit in to the remission of sins? Roussel answers that although forgiveness comes from God without intermediaries, nevertheless, “since (God wishes) to use intermediaries . . . not to use them would be to contravene the will of God and tempt Him.”86 The bishop therefore requires the people to confess to a minister, since through him they receive God’s promise of the remission of sins, which God authors and the priest merely proclaims. However, Roussel demands that a new liturgical form be used to restore confession’s faith-building purpose. He commands his clergy: Do not ever say, “I absolve you in my name,” rather say, “In the name of the Father, of the Son and the Holy Spirit, etc. . . .” (which is to say), “God by my ministry offers and exhibits to you the remission of your sins; embrace and receive this word in faith, and take it from Him through my ministry.”87

84 Nicholls, “Heresy and Protestantism, 1520–1542: Questions of Perception and Communication,” French History 10 (1996), 191, notes that the synod of Rouen in 1522 “reduced the number of feast-days, ‘ut mechanici suas operas exercere possent.’ ” 85 “Ceste bulle (contenant que si nous pardonnons, le Père nous pardonnera) est indubitable, et du grand maistre, pontife et pape Jésuchrist, à laquelle nous pouvons et debvons seurement arrester,” Forme de visite, 179r. 86 “Je dis donc au propos commencé: combien que soit Dieu seul qui, de son auctorité et puissance, remect et pardonne le péché, et que c’est à luy qu’il se fault adresser pour l’impétrer, devant luy fault se recongnoistre pécheur, tel se confesser et accuser en tout temps et lieu, néantmoins qu’il feist bien tout luy seul, sans moyens, puis que son vouloir et ordonnance est user de moyen et qu’il veult honnorer ses créatures, usant d’elles n’en voulloir user seroit contrevenir au vouloir de Dieu et tenter Dieu,” Forme de visite, fol. 179v. 87 “Aussi ne dict point: Je t’asboubz en mon nom [ego te absolvo], mais: ‘Au nom du Père, du Filz, et du benoist Sainct Esprit,’ aultant que s’il disoit: Dieu par nom ministère

534

chapter eleven

It is noteworthy that Roussel’s synodal statutes and the confrontation they engendered bear close resemblance to events that occurred during his preaching at Meaux and Paris. In a deposition against Roussel after the defaming of papal indulgences and prayers to Mary in the winter of 1524–1525, when asked why, in light of recent events, he had not been saying the Ave Maria, Roussel responded: If I have exhorted the people to say the Pater, it is because I know that the Lord’s salutation is as efficacious as the angelic salutation, the Ave Maria.

The indictment goes on to report that Roussel promised, but subsequently omitted, to say the Ave Maria during the Mass.88 The Evangelical Eucharist: Sacrament of Unity, Source of Difference The most divisive religious issue of the Reformation era was without doubt the Eucharist. Quite understandably, Charles Schmidt, Francis Higman, Maurice Causse, and Thierry Wanegffelen have all zeroed in on Roussel’s discussion of the sacrament of the body and blood, or Lord’s Supper as he often names it, in order to determine Roussel’s confessional stripes.89 Their findings differ significantly. He was either a

t’offre et exhibe rémission de tes péchez embrassant et recepvant ceste parolle en foy, et prens de luy par nom ministère,” Forme de visite, fol. 179v. On this specific point and on Roussel’s religious thought in general, one should probably consult the Farrago omnium fere rerum theologicarum (Strasbourg, Johann Herwagen, 1525), which Bernard Roussel says “inclut une sorte de liturgie pénitentielle nouvelle: XIII: De poenitentia partibus,” citing fol. 301 ff.; fol. 348: “Talis potest esse confessio peccatorum quod ad externa spectant: Frater aut soror in Christo. Ego me . . .”; fol. 350: “Forma autem absolutionis libera est, modo significet omnia per Christum peccata remitti . . . Ego te absolvo . . . vell hoc . . . vel sic . . . vel sic.” See Bernard Roussel, “Les premières dissidences religieuses du XVIe siècle à Metz (Hiver 1523–Été 1525),” in Les Réformes en Lorraine (1520–1620), ed. Louis Châtelier, Centre de recherches en histoire sociale et religieuse 2 (Nancy: Presses Universitaires de Nancy, 1986), 11–45, 24, n. 35. 88 For the two indictments brought against Roussel, see Charles Schmidt, “G. Roussel, inculpé d’hérésie à Meaux (1525),” BSHPF 10 (1861), 219–221; and for the context see Veissière, Guillaume Briçonnet, 318–321. Veissière seems to have missed the second of the two indictments, the one that is particularly revealing about Roussel’s thought on the Virgin Mary and by inference the other saints. 89 Charles Schmidt also appended large sections of the Familiere exposition in Gérard Roussel, 122–167; Roussel’s dedicatory letter to Henri d’Albret appears as pièce justificative no. XVIII, 223–226 and the Forme de visite de diocese as pièce justificative no. XIX, 226–239. Higman excerpts passages from Roussel’s Familiere exposition in his La

secret diplomacy and religious dissimulation, –

535

‘mystical Protestant,’ ‘an irenic,’ or an ‘authentic pre-Tridentine “nonconfessional” Catholic,’ depending on whom you consult.90 Each of these scholars has had to define their position with reference to two facts. As Schmidt first noted, although no one has explored this systematically, Roussel appears to propound a number of Calvinist doctrines. It would seem fitting then that the Faculty of Theology condemned the Familiere exposition on 15 October 1550. However, none of the censured passages comes from the section that seems the most heretical in BnF Latin 419, namely, Roussel’s treatment of the two—note only two—sacraments: baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Based upon external evidence, it can be shown that the copy of the Familiere exposition censured by the faculty did not contain this section on the sacraments, which is in essence a separate excursus appended to the Familiere exposition found in BnF Latin 419. This point, which bears on the history of the dissemination of Roussel’s writings in manuscript, indicates that Roussel knew his sacramental theology would not be acceptable to traditional Catholics. The controversy about how to interpret Roussel’s doctrine remains. It is worth revisiting Roussel’s treatment of the Lord’s Supper, since this inquiry will clarify a number of problems not just about Roussel’s thought but also about the way evangelicals, whom Roussel helped to direct, responded to persecution in France and pressure from Calvin abroad during the late 1540s. In particular, reading Roussel’s treatment of the Lord’s Supper side by side with the equivalent passages in Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion91 reveals clearly that Roussel

diffusion de la Réforme en France, 1520–1565, Publications de la Faculté de Théologie de l’Université de Genève 17 (Geneva: Éditions Labor et Fides, 1992). 90 See Schmidt, Gérard Roussel, 58–60, 118–127; Higman, La diffusion de la Réforme, 179; and Thierry Wanegffelen, Ni Rome ni Genève, 95–97. In his 1976 dissertation, Paul Landa provides little more than a lengthy summary of Roussel’s discussion of the Eucharist, which he finds “far from clear and hence not simple to grasp.” He concludes that Roussel’s views were “Protestant,” of no determinable stripe, though in some respects closer to Luther. See Landa, “The Reformed Theology of Gerard Roussel,” 246–261, esp. 247 and 255–261. 91 Jean-Daniel Benoît’s critical edition serves as the basis for this comparison: John Calvin, Institution de la Religion Chrétienne, 5 vols., ed. Jean-Daniel Benoît, Bibliothèque des textes philosophiques (Paris: J. Vrin, 1957–1963). His notes, index of themes, and apparatus for comparing the evolution of Calvin’s thought and the structure of his magnum opus through its different editions were invaluable. Hereafter cited as IRC, volume, chapter, section number (which refer to the divisions in the final 1560 edition), plus the page references in Benoît’s edition: thus, for example, IRC, IV, XIV, 15, 329–330.

536

chapter eleven

had digested the Genevan reformer’s theological handbook and incorporated many essential elements into his explanation of the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper.92 Roussel’s Doctrine of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood Roussel’s discussion of the Sacrament of the body and blood echoes in its major points Calvin’s thought as expressed in the Institutes. Moreover, there are many close structural and textual similarities between the two texts. However, this is not another case like that of the Parisian theologian Claude d’Espence, who translated Luther’s words and passed them off under his own name. Roussel engages Calvin’s text but he works it up into his own particular exposition.93 This intellectual exchange is at first glance not surprising, since they had known each other in France during the early 1530s. Shortly after settling in exile, Calvin targeted his “old friend” Roussel—so Beza tells us—in the second letter in the 1537 Epistolae duae. This treatise was Calvin’s initial salvo against those ‘halfhearted’ evangelicals whom he would later dub “pseudo-Nicodemites.” Calvin wrote his letter in response to Roussel’s elevation as bishop in 1536.94 However the bishop of Oloron took that chastisement, it did

92 Charles Schmidt, Gerard Roussel, 160, and Maurice Causse, “Familier exposition,” 25–27, have rightly suggested such a dependence, but the demonstration remains to be made. 93 Florimond de Raemond offers an intriguing explanation of when this exchange of ideas started. He relates that Calvin gave Roussel some of his writings and a plan or draft [projet] of his Institutes when he passed through the south of France in 1534. Though there is no proof that Calvin had yet written his Institutes at that time or that he actually met Roussel during this journey, the salient point is that Florimond invokes a fact well-known at the time but not well documented now: both men traveled in the same evangelical circles in France during the early 1530s, and had had some contact prior to Calvin’s departure from France. Florimond de Raemond, L’histoire de la naissance . . . de l’hérésie, bk. 7, ch. 17, 921–922, writes: “Calvin quitte Poitiers, & s’en va en Guyenne pour voir Roussel & le Fevre. . . . Calvin . . . coule à Nerac pour voir Roussel & le Fevre, tous deux bien aymés & favoris de la Reyne de Navarre. . . . Beze . . . ne dit pas qu’il fut visiter Roussel, comme le valet va recognoistre son maistre: Car ainsi que j’ay dit ci-devant, il avoit esté son serviteur au voyage d’Alemagne, comme plusieurs qui vivent aujourd’huy, eslevés aux lettres, par Roussel, luy ont souvent ouy raconter. Calvin luy communiqua ses escrits, & le projet de son Institution, tiré dans Angoulesme, luy découvre le dessein qu’il avoit de restablir l’Eglise en sa premiere pureté, disant qu’il falloit raser tout res pied, res terre, pour bastir un nouveau edifice.” 94 First published in 1537 as one of his Epistolae duae. See Droz, Chemins 1, 134 ff.; and Durengues, “Gérard Roussel,” 350. Text in CO 5, 279–312; later translated as Sur le devoir de l’homme chrétien en l’administration ou réjection des bénéfices de l’église papale, à un ancien ami de présent évesque. For the identification of Roussel as the ancien ami referred to by Calvin, see Beza’s life of Calvin, as cited in note 135 below.

secret diplomacy and religious dissimulation, –

537

not prevent him borrowing from Calvin’s 1543/1545 Institutes for his treatment of the Lord’s Supper. Roussel’s debt to Calvin can be shown with a few examples, but it is the differences that reveal Roussel’s independence and pose the problem of French evangelicalism’s stance vis-à-vis the increasingly organized churches and lucid theology of the Reformed tradition. At the start of his excursus on the sacraments, Roussel declares that they are, after the preaching of the gospel, the second means by which God declares his will and spreads his grace.95 Roussel begins his treatment of the Lord’s Supper by quoting the complete words of institution from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and First Corinthians. He announces that one should consider three matters when seeking to understand the sacrament, “what our Lord did, what he commanded to be done, and what is required on our part to participate and receive it to salvation.” This tripartite division structures what follows. The first section presents his Eucharistic theology, the second outlines a rite or order for its correct administration, and the third discusses a range of issues concerning who can and how one should commune. In the first section, Roussel explains that the sacrament of the body and blood is a rite whereby Jesus Christ, whose sacrifice on the cross was the unique redemption and satisfaction for all human sin, offers and exhibits to the elect all the benefits, fruits, and merits of his death, in which they participate by faith.96 Each component of this schema appears in Calvin’s Institutes, namely that Jesus’ death was a unique sacrifice, that it was for all sin, that only the elect benefit from it, and that they share in its benefits through faith.97

95 In an earlier section Roussel claims that the correct administration of the Sacraments is one of the marks of the church, FE, 23r ff. 96 1. FE, 157r–158r: Christ’s words show clearly that he died as a sacrifice ‘for the remission of sins’ for the elect (élus). Cf. IRC, IV, XIV, 15, 329–330. Quoting Augustine: “Sacrement n’ont leur effet sinon en les élus,” IRC, IV, XVII, 34, 425–426. 2. FE, 157r–157v: Christ’s sacrifice is for all the world, but only the elect benefit from it through faith. Cf. IRC, IV, XIV, 7, 294–295 and again at section 17, 305: the sacrament is only “efficace” for those who received it by faith. 3. FE, 157v: His death is a free ( gratuite) ‘redemption’ or ‘satisfaction’ for sin. Cf. “Jésus-Christ seule satisfaction pour les péchés,” IRC, III, IV, 26–27; III, XII, 3; III, XV, 6; II, XVI, 3, 6; III, IV, 30; II, XVII, 4. 4. FE, 157v–158r: Christ’s death is for the forgiveness of sins, all of them, of every type, including all those committed before or after baptism. It is the remissions of sins by the redemption or satisfaction made by Christ alone. 97 Roussel’s discussion is structured by a series of questions: What benefits or fruits are given in the sacrament? How? By what external signs? Why those signs? Why is the sacrament given at all? And to what end? FE, 156v–161r. A similar structuring

538

chapter eleven

Roussel’s use of Calvin appears even more explicit when he discusses the crucial issue of how to understand the real presence of Jesus’ body and blood. Here, like Calvin, Roussel attacks the problem by considering the special relationship between the sign and the thing signified in the sacrament. Roussel explains that Jesus Christ used the metaphor or similitude of food and drink to show that his body and blood need to be eaten and are necessary for salvation.98 He uses an analogy that parallels a passage from Calvin. Roussel writes: There is in the sacrament this correspondence: just as material bread is necessary and required for corporal life, so also the body of Jesus Christ is necessary and required for spiritual and eternal life. And since material bread, if it is not taken and eaten, does not profit corporal life, if the body of Jesus Christ is not apprehended and eaten, it does not profit spiritual and eternal life.99

Calvin had made the same argument: When we see that the bread has been presented to us as a sign and Sacrament of the body of Jesus Christ, we must immediately grasp this similitude: just as the bread nourishes, gives substance, and preserves the

passage appears in Calvin’s treatment of the Sacraments. Calvin explains that beyond the external sign of sacrament, one should consider the significance, the material or substance, and lastly the strength or effect from them both. He elaborates: “The significance is located in the promises, which are imprinted in the sign. I call the material or substance, Jesus Christ, with his death and resurrection. By the effect, I mean the redemption, justice, sanctification, eternal life, and all the benefits which Jesus Christ conveys to us,” IRC, IV, XVII, 11, 386 [= 1545 version, 885–886, a passage that is not found in earlier editions]: “il y a trois poincts à considérer aux Sacremens, outre la signe extérieur, dont il n’est pas maintenant question: assavoir, la signification; après, la matière ou substance, tiercement, la vertu ou l’effet qui procède de l’un et de l’autre. La Signification est située aux promesses, lesquelles sont imprimées au signe. J’appelle la matière ou la substance, Jesus Christ, avec sa mort et résurrection. Par l’effet, j’enten la rédemption, justice, sanctification, la vie éternelle, et tous les bénéfices que Jesus Christ nous apporte.” 98 FE, 158v: According to John 6: “[Christ] se condescendant à la capacité nostre, et pour bien et commodément nous enseigner et faire congnoistre de quand nécessité et utilité est son corps et son sang, use de la métaphore et similitude de la viande et breuvaige, de manger et boyre, par laquelle nous veult donner à entendre que son corps et sang sont de trop plus grande nécessité et efficace pour la vie spirituelle et éternelle que ne pourroit estre la viande pour la vie corporelle.” 99 FE, 158v–159r: “Mais en ce est la correspondance que, comme le pain matérial est nécessaire et requis pour la vie corporelle, aussi est nécessaire et requis le corps de Jésuchrist pour la vie spirituelle et éternelle. Et comme le pain matériel, s’il n’est prins et mangé, ne prouffite pour la vie corporelle aussi le corps, s’il n’est appréhendé et mangé, ne proffite pour la vie spirituelle et éternelle.”

secret diplomacy and religious dissimulation, –

539

life of our body, so also the body of Jesus Christ is the flesh, the food and the preservation of our spiritual life.100

Relying on the same passages from St. Augustine, both Calvin and Roussel go on from these statements to argue at length against the Sacramentarian position. They claim that what is special about this sacramental sign is that the thing signified is actually given with the sign. In other words, that the body and blood are really given with the sacramental signs of the bread and wine. From this it happens, says Roussel, that the signs: are no longer called bread and wine, but the body and blood: thus they truly take the names of the things that through them are offered and exhibited.101

100 IRC, IV, XVII, 3, 377: “Car quand nous voyons le pain nous estre présenté pour signe et Sacrement du corps de Jesus Christ, il nous fault incontinent prendre ceste similitude: Qu’ainsi que le pain nourrist, sustente et conserve la vie de nostre corps, aussi le corps de Jesus Christ est la viande, la nourriture et conservation de nostre vie spirituelle. . . . Car si nous considérons bien que nous a profité ce que le corps tressacré de Jesus a esté livré, et son sang espandu pour nous, clairement nous verrons que cela qu’on attribue au pain et au vin, selon ceste analogie et similitude, leur convient tresbien.” 101 FE, 163r–164r: On the signs and their relationship to the things signified. This passage in the FE resembles IRC, IV, XVII, 20 and 21, 398–403: 1. FE, 163r: After giving different types of signs, Roussel notes that some only want to recognize the real presence of the bread and wine and not of the body and blood: That is from the school of reason, not of the school of faith. It is better to believe in the spirit of faith: “Telle simplicité de foy qui embrasse purement la parolle de Jésuschrist et à icelluy s’arreste et contente, pour toute persuasion et raison que le Maistre l’a dict, outlre ce qu’elle ne fait aulcune ouverture à erreur.” 2. FE, 164r: The bread and wine lose their names, “et non plus sont appelez pain et vin, mais le corps et le sang: par ainsi prennent vrayement le nom des choses que par eulx sont offertes et exhibées.” Cf. IRC, IV, XVII, 21, 402, n. a: “1541–1557: Car si les signes humain, qui sont plustost figures des choses absentes, qu’enseignes et marques des présentes, et le plus souvent nous abusent en les dénotant, prennent toutesfois le nom d’icelles, par plus forte raison ceux que Dieu a instituez peuvent emprunter le tiltre des choses qu’ilz représentent, desquelles ilz contiennent la signification certaine et sans fallace.” 3. FE, 164r: Roussel quotes the very same letter by Augustine that Calvin had first used in 1543/1545 to show that the signs should be similar to the things they signify. Roussel writes, “Sainct Augustin, en l’Espitre 23e à Boniface, en assigne la cause quant il dict: ‘Si les sacrements n’avoient quelques similitudes des choses desquelles sont Sacremens, du tout ne seroient sacermens.” Calvin had written, without citing the letter number or the recipient Boniface, “Sainct Augustin n’a pas autrement senty ne parlé: “Si les Sacrements, dit-il, n’avoyent quelque similitude avec les choses desquelles ils sont Sacrements, ce ne seroyent plus Sacremens.” IRC, IV, XVII, 21, 403 and n. 2, citing Augustine, Epistula 98, in Jacques-Paul Migne, ed., Patrologiae cursus completus . . . Series Latina, 221 vols. (Paris: Garnier frères and J.-P. Migne héritiers, 1844–1882), vol. 33, 364. Roussel’s translation of Augustine is different than Calvin’s. This is a sign that

540

chapter eleven

Roussel’s major point in arguing against the Sacramentarians is to point out that the Eucharist’s principal purpose is not simply to preserve the memory of Christ or serve as a mark of membership in Christian society, as they argue,102 but rather to nourish the soul, to make the participant more certain of his or her salvation, and to remove all doubt about the remission of sins.103 Roussel writes: I believe and thus confess that they certainly seem to me to err and abuse themselves greatly who want only to recognize the presence of the sign and not include the presence of the body and blood, as if the showing of the sign was sufficient [ydoine] and propitious for confirming and assuring the benefit and fruit of his body and blood that is the real and true showing of the body and blood.104

Again, all of these assertions find close parallels in Calvin’s Institutes. The only significant difference between their two discussions of the benefits and goals of the sacrament is one of emphasis. While Calvin will speak most readily of the confirmation of faith given by the

Roussel may be using Calvin’s Latin Institutes, since he appears to be coming up with his own translations and double checking Calvin’s sources. 102 FE, 164v: Against the position taken to be Zwingli’s: those who just take the signs for mere symbols are wrong. The sacraments are not just for preserving the memory and marking membership in the Christian society. Cf. IRC, IV, XIV, 13, 300–302, where Calvin argues against Zwingli. Again, FE, 166v: The point of the real giving of the body and blood is to make communicants certain of their salvation, not simply to preserve a memory and not simply to give entry into Christian society. 103 See FE, 163v–166v, for Roussel’s thought on participation in the body and blood as being “pour nourrissement et substentation de la vie spirituelle et éternelle.” Cf. IRC, IV, XIV, 7, 294–296; IV, I, I, 7–8: “Les Sac. sont pour nourrir, confirmer, et augmenter la foi.” FE, 165r: The principal goal of the sacrament is to make the participant ‘certior,’ more certain of the benefits left as a legacy by Jesus Christ. Cf. IRC, IV, XVII, 4, 377, for the same assertion. FE, 166r: Christ’s testament is a promise of the remission of sins by his death: the gift of his body and blood in the sacrament is to “oster toute doubte de la rémission des péchez et de la vie éternelle.” FE, 166v: The point of the real giving of the body and blood is to give certitude of salvation: “ceste légation testamentaire avoir esté par luy faicte pour nous rendre certains de la rémission des péchez, de la grace de rédemption et de tous les biens célestes qu’il nous a aquis et impétrez de Père par le bénéfice de son corps immolé et son sang espandu.” Cf. IRC IV, XVII, 3, 377: Calvin emphasizes the gift of Christ’s sacrifice is “épandu pour nous.” 104 Again FE, 166r: Against Sacramentarians who only want to recognize the presence of a sign in the sacrament: “D.: Je le croy ainsi et confesse; et bien me semblent grandement errer et s’abuse ceulx qui ne veullent recongnoistre que la présence du signe, et non mye la présence du corps et sang, comme si l’exhibition du signe estoit ydoine et propice pour certiorer et asseurer du bénéfice et fruict de son corps et sang qu’est l’actuelle et vraye exhibition dudict corps et sang.” Cf. IRC, IV, XVII, 7, 381: same issue.

secret diplomacy and religious dissimulation, –

541

sacrament,105 Roussel will emphasize the union of the participants with Jesus Christ, who promised that he would dwell in his followers and they in him.106 In the second section, Roussel describes how to celebrate the sacrament. He asserts that Jesus’ words of institution were simple and clear, warning that one should follow only them, deviating to neither left nor right, lest one fall into error. For a second time, he quotes Paul’s account of the Last Supper from 1 Cor. 11,107 and explains that the correct celebration of the sacrament has five elements. First, the bread and chalice should be taken and distributed as Christ did with the apostles. Second, thanks should be given. Third, the bread should be broken, divided, and a fraction of it given to the participants. Fourth, everyone should take both elements. Fifth, one should “preach the death of the Lord.”108

105 Cf. IRC, IV, XIV, 1, 289–290: the sacraments, like the preaching of the word of God, will confirm faith in the believer. And, IRC, IV, XIV, 7, 295: ‘Les sacrement nourrir, confirme, et augment la foi.’ 106 FE, 160r–160v: The chief benefit of Christ’s sacrifice is that one is made consort to his divine nature; his life, glory, and spirit are communicated; the spirit of faith and love is given; by grace one is unified with him; and his justice is attributed to the sinner. The union with Christ as one’s ‘true chief and spouse’ is more complete than the link between the head and members of the body, the spirit and the body, or could ever be between a woman and her husband in body and temporal goods. Cf. IRC, IV, XIX, 35, 502–503, on Christ as spouse. FE, 160v: The eating of the sacrament is an allegory for the spiritual union which takes place in the sacrament: “Ceste unyon se recongnoist assez bien insinuée et signifiée soubz l’alégorie de la viande par nous mangée et digérée, laquelle par la communication de nostre chair et sang convertissons en nostre substance, l’unissons à nous, la faisons vivre d’une mesme vie avec nous, comme faicte par ce moyen vraye partye de nous, d’une mesme ame et vie que les reste. Ainsi fault il entendre par la communication de la chair et sang de nostre Seigneur Jésuchrist, que luy mesme exprime par viande et breuvaige; car, par telle communication de sa chair et sang qu’il faict par grace au fidèle (lequel, imbu de foy, est vrayement dict manger sa chaire et boire son sang), il le transforme et luy communique son Esprit et vie, et le faict vivre d’une mesme vie avec luy, comme son vray membre.” FE, 161v: The excellence of this life in union with Christ is that it is eternal. This is a key point for Roussel, who stresses at length that: “tousjours demourons en luy et luy en nous.” Cf., IRC, III, I, I: “Pour participer au salut, il faut que le Christ soit fait nôtre et habite en nous, que nous soyons faits un avec lui.” 107 Oddly, Roussel’s rendering of 1 Cor. 11 in this passage differs from the one he gives at the beginning of his discussion of the Lord’s Supper in word order, spelling, and pronoun usage on at least eight occasions. This is a sign either of sloppy copying, e.g. during dictation, or that Roussel or his editor were using Latin sources and did not translate them the same way each time. 108 In a compact passage, (FE, 167v–168r), Roussel describes an ideal liturgy for the Eucharist in five points:

542

chapter eleven

The chief elements of this ceremony are clear. Roussel thinks the sacrament should be a public rite in which the laity along with the minister communicate with a fraction from a common loaf and drink from the chalice. A liturgy of thanksgiving and preaching ought to sustain this sacral event. However, Roussel gives no examples of the liturgical elements or gestures that would complete this ceremony, as does Calvin in an equivalent passage.109 Rather, Roussel warns immediately after this Spartan description that by forgetting this simplicity there have arisen “abominations, abuses, irreverence, discords and debates that are an affront to God and dangerous to souls.”110 Roussel cites as the principal abuse the idea that the sacrament was perceived as a work whose mere performance is efficacious. He writes: If it was only a question of an external work, you could find no one so wretched that he was not capable of it. [However], our Lord taught that . . . it is his memory that he wants us to consider and to discuss diligently in the administration and partaking of the sacrament.111

“[1.] Premièrement il dict qu’il a prins le pain, puis le calice, lesquelz deux il a donné à ses apostres. Parquoy, pour nous conformer à luy et faire ce qu’il a faict, faison le semblable. [2.] Puis, il a rendu graces: fault aussi que rendons graces; pourtant est ce que noz anciens l’on appellé ‘eucharistie,’ c’est à dire action de graces.’ [3.] Tiercement, il a rompu le pain et par telle fraction l’a rendu communicable, l’a divisé et départy selon son accousumée. . . . [4] Quartement il leur command manger le pain et boyre le calice qu’il leur baille. Parquoy, obtempérant à son commandement, fault faire l’ung et l’aultre. [5.] Quintement, quant il dict: ‘Touteffoys que mangeres ce pain et bevres ce calice vous annunceres la mort du Seigneur jusques ad ce qu’il vienne,’ assez donne il à congnoistre debvoir estre pour nous prescher la mort du Seigneur.” “Ce sont les cinq choses qui sont dudict passaige de sainct Pol fidèlement recolligées, et sans y adjouster ny diminuer, et par ainsi que nous avons du mandement de nostre Seigneur par son vaisseau d’élection, sainct Pol.” Calvin describes, if a bit more expansively, the correct celebration of a Lord’s Supper as having essentially the same elements. See IRC, IV, XVII, 43, 439–440. Roussel cites Mark 6 and 8, Luke 24, John 21, Acts 2:42, and 1 Cor. 10. There is no similar grouping of these citations in the equivalent passage in IRC, though Calvin does cite Acts 2:42 in the paragraph following his description of the rite, IRC, IV, XVII, 44, 441. 109 IRC, IV, XVII, 43, 438–440. 110 FE, 168v. 111 FE, 168v: “D.: S’il n’estoit question que de l’oeuvre externe, nul ne se trouveroit, pour mauvais qu’il fust, qu’il n’en fust capable. Parquoy fault il bien regarder le but que prétend l’observation de ceste institution: assavoir pourquoy il a institué et à quelle fin il veult que l’observons. Ce que nostre Seigneur enseigne en peu de parolles, quant il dict: ‘Faictes cela en mémoire de moy,’ c’est la mémoire de luy qu’il veult qu’en l’administration et perception de ce sacrement considérons et traictons diligemment.”

secret diplomacy and religious dissimulation, –

543

Behind this allusion to the abominations and abuses of the sacrament one is tempted to imagine practices denounced by the reformers such as the reservation of the chalice, the interpretation of the Mass as a sacrifice, the adoration of the host, the buying and selling of private masses, and the celebration of masses for the dead. However, this would be to put words into Roussel’s mouth. All he says positively is that the sacrament should be public, given to all under both kinds, and accompanied by thanksgiving and preaching of the message of Jesus’ death. As to the issue of abuses and abominations and their perpetrators, one meets with Roussel’s stony silence. He refuses to denounce more specifically the errors lying, as he says, ‘to the left or the right’ of true doctrine and correct practice. In the third and final section, Roussel takes up the issue of how one should prepare to participate in the sacrament. The chief item of interest here is that Roussel affirms that no one but the participant can review his or her conscience before communicating. The problem has to do with Paul’s injunction that one should not take the sacrament unworthily. Roussel relates that, if one means by this that the participant should be worthy in the sense of meriting the sacrament, then no one ever does or can merit it. However, if one means by worthy (idone), that one is capable of or suited to receiving the sacrament to its ordained end, which is only done through faith,112 then this is the correct criterion for assessing whether one should commune.113 In the corresponding passage in the Institutes Calvin does not use the word idone as a synonym for digne. In this case Roussel probably drew on Erasmus’s gloss on the use of the word dignus in the Vulgate, which served to translate the two Greek words axios and icanos. It was the latter term, meaning suited to or capable of, idone in French, which helped inform Roussel’s thought.114

112 See FE, 170r–170v and 173r–173v: To commune, one does not have to be without sin or be just, but merely to be thirsty for grace. No one should examine the consciences of others, nor should one allow others to examine one’s own conscience, “mais que ung chacun preuve soymesmes.” 113 Roussel illustrates this notion by introducing a comparison with Jesus’ words to his disciples when he sent them out to preach, telling them to abide only with those who were ready to receive their preaching. See Mark 6:10 and Luke 9:4. Calvin does not cite these passages in his equivalent section in the Institutes. 114 Prof. Bernard Roussel kindly pointed out the significance of Erasmus’s treatment of these terms.

544

chapter eleven

However, one does find a similar injunction against letting anyone examine the communicant’s conscience in Calvin’s Institutes.115 Notably, Calvin’s argument comes explicitly during his attack on the Catholics’ claim that the sacrament of confession purifies the sinner, rendering him or her in a state of sacramental grace or perfection as a necessary precondition for receiving the sacrament worthily.116 Roussel also undermines this notion when he asserts that if one were perfect, then

115 This ritual re-orientation corresponds to Roussel’s reformulation of the sacrament of penance. In his instruction to the ‘presbyters’ or ‘ministers’ of his diocese, he enjoins them not to pronounce the words of forgiveness in their own name but in the name of God, who alone forgives sins and who distributes the remission of sins through the ministry of the presbyter. See Schmidt, Gérard Roussel, pièce justificative, no. 19, 239; Forme de visite de diocese, as in notes 86 and 87, in which Roussel presents an argument for preserving a form of confession to ministers, though not the sacrament of penance. Roussel also has a very different interpretation of the purpose of the ‘castigation or satisfaction of sin’ than was traditionally held. FE, 129r–129v: Roussel recycles the sacrament of penance in an ‘evangelical’ fashion. The human invention of the sacrament of penance is wrong. Roussel denies that the penalty is held against the forgiven sinner. However, God does chastise his children. The sacrament of penance should be understood as castigation: “M.: Ainsi regardée, n’est point petite et n’est de petite importance; elle surmonte en difficulté et utilité toutes les pénitences que les hommes se pourroient excogiter. Mais que dirons-nous icy de la peine infligée à David, que sa maison fut pugnye après le péché à luy remys, 2 Samu. 12? Ferons-nous aulcune exception, disant qu’en quelques péchez la coulpe est remise et que la peine est réservée: qui ne seroit selon que a esté exposé le debt estre remis, puis que encores seroit exigée solution de peine? “D.: J’ay apprins de vous de faire différence entre castigation et satisfaction, et que bien aultre chose est la castigation par laquelle Dieu chastie les sien avec une verge paternelle, et aultre la satisfaction par laquelle on doibt satisfaire à justice divine par juste peine. Ceste peine est remise avec la coulpe, mais non point la castigation des enfans de Dieu, de laquelle il dict, Pseaulme 88: “Je visiteray avec verges leurs iniquitez et avec bastures leurs péchez, mais n’osteray point ma misércorde.” Héb. 12: “Il flagelle tout enfant qu’il reçoipt.” “Qui est le filz que la père ne corrige?” Comme dict a esté, nul ne peult satisfaire à la divine justice, voire jusques au moindre péché, mais pouvons bien estre chastiez et battus pour tous délictz, ou avec miséricorde en ceste vie, ou par juste jugement en l’aultre.” “M.: Tu dis bien vray, car la castigation ne se faict point que Dieu veuille luy estre satisfaict par icelle, mais pour nous instruire et nous rendre myeulx advisez pour l’advenir; pour estre aussi exemple aux aultres. Telles pouvons nous bien recognoistre les pénitences et satisfactions ecclésiasticques et canoniques vrayes disciplines pour l’instruction de nous et des aultres de ne commettre le semblable pour l’advenir.” Roussel goes on to argue that, therefore, indulgences are pernicious because they make the children of God negligent. 116 See IRC, IV, XVII, 41, 436. Moreover, Roussel and Calvin will both immediately proceed to the issue of whether and how those with infirm consciences should participate. See FE, 173v–174r, and IRC, IV, XVII, 41, 436–437.

secret diplomacy and religious dissimulation, –

545

one would not need the sacrament. Consistently, Roussel makes no direct attack, nor does he attempt to reconcile his position to Catholic doctrine and practice. Interpreting Roussel’s Confessional Stripes The object of this exposition of Roussel’s Eucharistic thought has been to demonstrate one rather precise point. Gérard Roussel is in essential agreement with John Calvin in his theology of the sacrament of the body and blood. Roussel structures his arguments, cites passages from Scripture, Irenaeus, Chrysostom, and Augustine, and uses analogies that all find close parallels in Calvin’s Institutes. Certain of these made their first appearance in Calvin’s third edition (1543 Latin, 1545 French).117 Charles Schmidt and Maurice Causse have previously suggested that Roussel used the Institutes at various points in his Familiere exposition. Paul Landa has demonstrated the agreement of Roussel’s “Reformed theology” with Calvin’s on several other issues, but he does not discern much similarity in their Eucharistic thought. My sounding of other parts of the Familiere exposition indicates that Roussel used Calvin throughout, though the full comparison has yet to be made.118 That said, one should be quick to note that Roussel draws on other “true expositors of Scripture,” as he calls them in his dedicatory letter to Henri d’Albret. His possible use of Erasmus to explain the term idone / digne (worthy) was noted above. When in another passage Roussel recounts the various appellations that Scripture gives to the sacrament, such as Eucharist and Communion, he may have been using Heinrich Bullinger’s Decades of 1549, where a similar exposition is found.119 At other times, he uses metaphors and analogies that are common to the exegetical traditions of both confessional camps. Having surveyed Roussel’s Eucharistic theology, what confessional badge should one hang on him? The most provocative answer comes from Thierry Wanegffelen in his study of “the Christians between Rome

117

See note 101 above. Landa does not make a systematic comparison of Roussel’s Familiar exposition with Calvin’s Institutes. He only appeals to the latter when the echoes seem evident to him. Luther serves as the basis of his comparison more often. Landa’s thesis provides a good start in assessing Roussel’s doctrines, though much more could be done. See Landa, “The Reformed Theology of Gerard Roussel,” passim. 119 FE, 172r. 118

546

chapter eleven

and Geneva.”120 In a major section devoted to Roussel’s Familiere exposition, he claims that Roussel’s thought on the Eucharist was perfectly Catholic. Concentrating not on his doctrinal definitions but rather on the affective piety advocated by Roussel’s exposition, Wanegffelen claims that Roussel invites the participant to commune in the ‘old sense’ of taking the Mass fervently as opposed to the Tridentine manner of receiving the host.121 He criticizes Charles Schmidt, Maurice Causse, and Francis Higman for having read the Familiere exposition selectively, searching for only the passages that sound like Calvin. Moreover, Wanegffelen charges that they have purposefully ignored the passages where, he believes, Roussel requires the central liturgical gesture that presupposes adoration of the sacrament, namely the Elevation of the Host during the Eucharist.122 Wanegffelen is simply wrong. He cites no passages, nor are there any, in which Roussel invokes, as Wanegffelen would have it, “the adoration of Christ on the Cross at the moment when the host is elevated,” for either recommendation or censure.123 Rather, on this issue one again encounters one of Roussel’s silences. Wanegffelen has been too quick to speak for him. If anything, Roussel de-emphasizes such gestures and their implied adoration. He writes that to communicate worthily and honor the sacrament with true honor:

120 Such was the sub-title of his dissertation, “Ni Rome ni Genève: Des chrétiens entre Rome et Genève: Une histoire du choix religieux en France, vers 1520–vers 1610,” Ph.D. Thesis, (Université de Paris I, Panthéon-Sorbonne, 1994), which he revised as Ni Rome ni Genève: Des fidèles entre deux chaires en France au XVIe siècle, Bibliothèque Littéraire de la Renaissance série 3, 36 (Paris: Honoré Champion, 1997). 121 Wanegffelen, Ni Rome, 92–95. 122 Wanegffelen’s whole argument on this point is permeated with factual mistakes. He claims that Florimond de Raemond and, following him, Causse and Schmidt all attributed to Roussel the idea that the Elevation of the Host should be suppressed. None of them claims this. They were but comparing Roussel’s ideas with the “mess à sept points” which Marguerite de Navarre and her associates, according to Raemond, were using as the basis for a possible concord with the Lutherans in the mid 1530s. Florimond de Raemond describes the Mass in seven points as requiring: a public Mass, without elevation or adoration, under both aspects, to all the people, without commemoration of the virgin or the saints, from a whole loaf, with a priest who does not need to be celibate. It differs from the Lutheran Eucharist only in not being said in the vernacular or using wafers. Florimond de Raemond, L’histoire de la naissance . . . de l’hérésie, bk. 7, ch. 4, 854. 123 Wanegffelen, Ni Rome, 95. Nowhere does Wanegffelen cite Roussel, as he claims, speaking about the “Adoration du Christ en Croix au moment où l’hostie est élevée.” Roussel does speak of the adoration of Christ “in spirit and truth” when partaking of the Eucharist, but not at the elevation of the elements.

secret diplomacy and religious dissimulation, –

547

does not at all lie in outer appearance or in ceremonies, but in the true use of it, which lies in following the intention of the institutor.124

The principal problem facing those who want to type evangelicals like Roussel and those whom he may have influenced is how to interpret their silences. His positive statements clearly echo many Protestant doctrines. Equally, he sought to avoid getting embroiled in the doctrinal disputes of Catholics and Protestants. The only group whom he ever names as being in error is the Sacramentarians. They, in any case, lay to the left of Zwingli in the continuum of sacramental positions, and were acceptable to neither Catholics nor the magisterial reformers. Calvin, Beza, and those scholars who follow their line, such as Schmidt, have explained Roussel’s silence and his unwillingness to break with the Roman Catholic Church as due to some combination of greed, fear, cowardliness, or misguided mystical tolerance for all things external. For them, he was the classic Nicodemite, knowing the truth but stuck in papal abomination. Maurice Causse rehabilitates Roussel’s silence as a sign of his savvy dissembling, a tactical ploy directed towards overcoming adverse political situations to achieve his hidden Protestant ends. For Causse this is a positive sort of Nicodemism. For Wanegffelen, Roussel is the perfect example of what he calls ‘the Nicodemite religious sensibility’ of those non-confessional Catholics caught between the developing confessional fronts, who united the doctrine of justification by faith alone with a fervent Eucharistic devotion to the real presence, a commitment that prevented them from breaking with the traditional church.125 For Francis Higman, Roussel’s theology represents “a courageous attempt to find ground for understanding between Catholics and Lutherans (perhaps also with Calvinists), by renewing the terminology, for example on the Eucharist.”126 Higman’s analysis—including the suspicion that Roussel’s was also trying to appeal to “Calvinists”—more accurately describes the tenor of this bishop’s thought. There is indeed clear evidence that Roussel played with the usual terms of debate, for example, when he uses the fundamental Aristotelian category of

124 FE, 172v: “. . . pour dignement recepvoir ce sacrement, et honnorer de vray honneur, lequel ne gist point en contence du dehors et cérémonies, mais au vray usaige, lequel usaige gist à suyvre l’intention de l’instituteur.” 125 Wanegffelen, Ni Rome, 85–97. 126 “C’est une tentative courageuse de trouver un terrain d’entente entre catholiques et luthériens (peut-être même avec les calvinistes), en renouvelant la terminologie, par exemple sur l’eucharistie,” Higman, La diffusion de la Réforme, 179.

548

chapter eleven

substance. In an antithetical analogy, he emphasizes that the sacral food eats and transforms the substance of the communicant, but he never says a word about transubstantiation.127 Roussel’s refusal to discuss Eucharistic positions other than the one he presents as the pure teaching of Scripture is in essence his declaration of confessional allegiance. Although his thought was clearly Protestant and specifically Calvinist on the nature of Christ’s real presence, Roussel opted not to choose sides, at least publicly, precisely because he believed that the confessional battles over such issues were major obstacles to achieving a true reformation. In this, Wanegffelen is exactly right: Roussel was caught between the confessional fronts. He specifically notes that there are debates but refuses to engage them; he warns against the abuses of the sacrament, yet he declines to name them. His paradoxical inversion of the heuristic terms used by others blurred the battle-lines over, in his view, non-essential matters, and complemented his effort to quell the fray. Like his former master Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples, he feared that contention over the gospel rather than clarifying it would prevent it from being heard. Early on at Meaux, Lefèvre and Roussel had commanded the laity to refrain from disputes. Again in the Familiere exposition he admonishes that the sacrament of Eucharist is not a matter for the school of human reason, but wholly for the school of faith. His first words on the sacramental disputes are also his last: If this simplicity had been followed [namely, following Christ’s words of institution without enquiring or disputing about them], there would not have been introduced the diverse opinions and discord that do great injury to the truly Christian union commanded and required by this sacrament.128

By way of conclusion, one should try to balance two images of Roussel at his desk. In the first, he sits composing his Familiere exposition with Calvin’s Institutes open for reference. In the second, he writes to the papal curia first to get a dispensation to hold his multiple benefices and again later to confer them on his nephews.129 Calvin and scholars since have called this a contradiction. Evidence has been presented to

127 See note 106 for Roussel’s assertion that the communicant is transformed by eating the sacrament through faith and thereby abides in Christ. 128 See note 66 for quotation. This precept is central for understanding Roussel’s approach to Reformation controversies and bears repeating. 129 See Degret, “L’évêque d’Oloron, G. Roussel et la curie romaine,” 227–228.

secret diplomacy and religious dissimulation, –

549

show why Roussel considered using his exalted post within the militant church as the best of the bad options facing him for renewing the faith and church in France. In terms of the larger history of French evangelicalism, the important point is that in Roussel’s teaching, laden as it is with Calvinist, or more broadly Protestant notions, is one root of the rise of the Reformed Church in France. Disseminated through the Navarrian court, his friends, his students, and from the pulpits in his diocese, his theology quite probably, though the thesis needs to be tested, prepared the way for the work of Jeanne d’Albret, John Calvin, Theodore Beza, and Pierre Viret in Béarn and France. Taken together, the careers of Baduel and Roussel in the 1540s share several common traits that reveal efforts of the Navarrian Network to build on the local level the popular foundation for a future, broader reformation. Both taught evangelical doctrines; both attracted lay people to local evangelical groups, which they nurtured; both trained ministers capable of ministering to these groups. In these activities, they carried on the efforts of the Meaux reformers, who had sought to provide sustained evangelical preaching and equip the laity to read the Bible—even to serve as lay ministers. They also recall the efforts of the Du Bellay brothers, who put a series of young Frenchmen to school at Tübingen and Basel during the course of their diplomatic missions.130 The foregoing presentation of Roussel’s episcopacy should be followed up with further inquests into the careers of other prelates who owed their positions to Marguerite and had known evangelical tendencies, including Michel d’Arande, Jean Du Bellay, Antoine Caracciolo, Gabriel de Gramont, René Du Bellay, Jean de Monluc, and others. Similarly, Baduel’s tenure as rector at Nîmes invites further reflection and research on the local evangelical cells anchored by known collaborators with Marguerite who had similar positions of power and influence. In particular, the question of such groups’ complex relations with the Reformed communities in Switzerland needs to be addressed. To help sketch some of the defining lines of that yet-to-be drawn picture, the following section will summarize the relations of Calvin and the Reformed ministers in Switzerland with Marguerite’s network. Their battle of personas and comportments, to which Baduel gently 130 See Eugénie Droz, “Les étudiants français de Bâle,” BHR 20 (1958), 108–142, and V.-L. Bourrilly, Guillaume Du Bellay, seigneur de Langey, 1491–1543 (Paris: Société Nouvelle de Librairie et d’Édition), 1905.

550

chapter eleven

alluded in his 1550 letter to Melanchthon, was crucial in shaping the evangelical communities that would become the foundation of the Reformed churches of the future.

The Dynamics of Separation: The Navarrian Network and Calvin The period 1540–1550 can be fairly described as the period in which Calvin and French reformers in Switzerland attempted to wrest control of the evangelical movement in France from Marguerite and her associates. Their cross-boarder relationship was a long dance of fitful cooperation and increasing mutual criticism that eventually, in the late 1550s, led members of the evangelical sub-culture nurtured by Marguerite’s network to found schismatic Reformed churches in France under Geneva’s sway. Barring victory in transforming the French church from within through diplomatic and administrative means, Marguerite and other evangelicals had sought to practice a “living” and “true” faith within the existing structures of church and society. The compromises that they made with the “Devil,” the “Antichrist,” and “Babylon,”131 as they themselves called the pope and the Roman Church, prompted Calvin to condemn as Nicodemites and Libertines many of the leading evangelicals in France, all of whom were in Marguerite’s network: Roussel, Rabelais, Étienne Dolet, and the spiritualist Antoine Pocquet, among others. Guillaume Farel, John Calvin, and many of their colleagues in Switzerland had traveled part of their road to becoming reformers abroad in the circuit of Marguerite’s network. After rejecting France, they nevertheless kept their eyes fixed on their homeland, none with a more piercing gaze than Calvin. They maintained long and often difficult relations with their former colleagues. Calvin’s public mission to France132 began in the mid-1530s, as he took on the mantle, or rather prophet’s cloak, as the leader in exile of French Protestants. The goal here is to come to grips with the extent to which his efforts were directed at firming 131 “Pour ceste cause je proteste, / Que l’Antechrist succombera: / Au moins, que de brief tombera / Sur Babylonne quelcque orage,” “Epistre du coq en l’asne, envoyée à Lyon Jamet de Sansay en Poictou” (late 1535), in Marot, OP 2, 86–91, ll. 178–182. 132 See Heiko A. Oberman, “Europa afflicta: The Reformation of the Refugees,” ARG 83 (1992), 91–111.

secret diplomacy and religious dissimulation, –

551

up and wresting control over French evangelicals from the circles that Marguerite had long been protecting. The main lines of this development will be followed to 1550, the year after Marguerite’s death. The topic certainly deserves a more thorough and chronologically extended airing, since large numbers of those who had been in Marguerite’s network eventually became pillars of the French Reformed Church—most notably her daughter, Jeanne d’Albret. Calvin’s Attack against French Nicodemites Surveying his published works to 1550, one sees that, aside from successive editions of the Institutes, Calvin wrote far more polemical tracts than anything else. After 1550, Calvin concentrated more fully on his biblical commentaries and other exegetical texts. In the majority of his pre-1550 controversialist works, he took aim at members or former members of Marguerite’s network, even if he does not name them overtly. Such works are in bold in table 5 below.133 Table 5. Calvin’s Controversialist Works to 1550 Work

Published

Note

Nicolas Cop’s All Saints’ Day oration, 1 Nov. 1533.

Never published

Many scholars attribute authorship or partial authorship to Calvin, since a copy exists in his hand and he was an intimate of Cop.

Psychopannychia

1542

First written in 1534, Calvin refutes the “Libertine” Quintin’s doctrine that the soul also dies at death until resurrection.

Privilege for Olivétan’s Bible

1535

Dedication of Institutio to Francis I

1536

133

Written with, most likely, in the summer of 1535 at Basel, it responds to the persecution following the 1534 Placards.

For this analysis, see Jean-François Gilmont’s masterful study of Calvin’s career as author, Jean Calvin et le livre imprimé (Geneva: Droz, 1997). The following table is based, in part, on his “Appendice III. Les traits polémiques en ordre chronologique,” 377–378.

552

chapter eleven

(Table 5 cont.) Work

Published

Note

Epistolae duae 1. Becomes Petit traicté monstrant (1543) with Viret. 2. Becomes Traité des benefices (1554).

1537

Directed against two former friends among French evangelicals who were compromising sinfully with the papal church: the first targets Nicolas Duchemin, the second Roussel.

Preface to Catechismus

1538

Petit traicté de la cene

1541

Sadoleti epistola & Calvini responsio

1539

Declaration du comte de Furstenberg; 2nd Declaration

1539

Petit traicté monstrant que doit faire un fidele entre les papistes (1543) with Viret.

1543

Anti-Nicodemite tract directed to evangelicals in France. See Epistolae duae (1537) above.

Excuse aux M. les Nicodemites

1544

Response to those incensed by his Petit traicté, with new attacks against several types of Nicodemites, including “mignons” of the court. Mignonne was Francis I’s pet name for Marguerite.

Breve instruction pour armer contre les Anabaptistes

1544

Contre la secte des Libertins

1545

French, 1540

1540

Calvin responds to Jacopo Sadoleto’s appeal to the Genevans to return to obedience to Rome. Sadoleto was a member of the papal curia and a humanist prelate with whom Bucer and the Du Bellays thought it was possible to work. Defense of Fürstenburg, a German military leader and one of the most visible Lutherans at the court of Francis I.

Favorable mention of Étienne de La Forge at whose house in Paris Calvin encountered the spiritualist Quintin. Cf. 1534 Psychopannycia; 1541–1544, Poullain and Farel urged Calvin to write against the Libertines; 1545, Calvin’s only surviving letter to Marguerite, in which he explains his condemnation by name of Pocquet and Quintin, members of her household; 1548, Aegidius Michaux warns Calvin that Pocquet was preaching against him in Marguerite’s presence. Calvin does not respond.

secret diplomacy and religious dissimulation, –

553

(Table 5 cont.) Work

Published

Note

Pro G. Farello adversus Caroli

1545

Against Pierre Caroli, former Doctor of Theology at Paris, member of the Meaux group, and curate of Alençon, who joined Farel, Viret, and Calvin in exile in 1534, becoming alternately their co-worker and critic, before returning to the Catholic fold.*

Epistre contre un cordelier de Rouen

1547

Anti-Nicodemite tract. No known connection to Marguerite or her network.

De scandalis / Des scandales

1550

Calvin attacks Rabelais, Des Périers (d. 1544), Dolet (d. 1546), and others evangelical writers by name.

Traité des benefices

1554

See Epistolae duae (1537) above.

* See further, Pierre Viret, Disputation chrestiennes (Geneva: Jean Girard, 1544), 149–152, in which he criticizes Caroli. Higman, Piety, V 31.

The output of this large corpus presupposes an established evangelical audience in France for which Calvin had a deep pastoral concern. Most of these works have been well studied individually. Surveying these works serially, however, reveals how frequently Calvin addressed his pen during these years against specific individuals and groups in France whom he saw as misguided leaders, even dangerous seducers, of the growing number of faithful. By the time of Marguerite’s death, Calvin was in effect claiming leadership of the French evangelical movement, usurping the role the queen and her network had played. This point can be substantiated by concentrating on the first and the last works in this series published to 1550, the Epistolae duae and De scandalis, in the context of Calvin’s private remarks in his correspondence. Calvin against Marguerite’s Network Calvin and most of the ministers in Francophone Switzerland were originally French. Before their departures, many had been part of the loose network that looked to Marguerite, the Du Bellays, and their allies for political support. In Calvin’s case, besides direct contact with Marguerite, he had dozens of mutual friends and acquaintances with sometime members of her network: Andrea Alciato, the Daniel brothers, Étienne de La Forge, Pocquet and Quintin, Nicolas Cop, Roussel,

554

chapter eleven

Lefèvre, Marot, Renée de France, Farel, Caroli, Laurent Meigret, Claude Baduel, Robert Estienne, Marie Dentière, Antoine Froment, and Morelet Du Mouseau, among others. Immediately after his establishment in Geneva, Calvin began his anti-Nicodemite campaign and would go on to criticize most of these figures at one point or another for having fallen from what he deemed to be the correct path of righteous comportment. Moreover, Calvin singled out for chastisement members of the network, who, though not always named, served as cautionary examples. These figures included, Nicolas Duchemin, Roussel, Dolet, and Rabelais. The Epistolae duae of 1537 was Calvin’s first published controversialist work and commenced his long campaign against those whom he would later name “Nicodemites.”134 The second of these letters held up for censure, though not by name, the figure of Gérard Roussel, Marguerite’s almoner, who had been named bishop of Oloron (1536) but had not yet taken possession of his see.135 Calvin warns the would-be prelate that a Christian knowing the truth, i.e., one who believed that the traditional Catholic rites and doctrines of salvation were corrupt, should not accept a position in the Roman Church lest he pollute himself, dishonor God, and lead the souls in his charge to damnation. Calvin and Roussel, as they say, had history. As a student at Paris, Bourges, and Orleans, Calvin was one of Roussel’s admirers, a group which contemporaries called Geraldini.136 He narrated reports about

134 Christoph Burger argues the first epistle may not be directed against Nicolas Duchemin, but simply ‘others’ in “Calvin comme maître de ses amis dans la première de ses Epistolae duae (1537),” in Calvin et ses contemporains: Actes du colloque de Paris 1995, ed. Olivier Millet, Cahiers d’Humanisme et Renaissance 53 (Geneva: Droz, 1998), 149–162. The Psychopannychia, though written in 1534, did not appear until 1542. Among Calvin’s other early works, his preface to Olivétan’s Bible (1535) and the dedicatory epistle to Francis I heading the 1536 Institutes were apologetic and not controversialist works. 135 Beza writes in his biography of Calvin, “Interea Calvinus anno videlict MDXXXVII, quod multos in Gallia videret veritatem quidem intus probe noscentes, sibi tamen indulgentes, quasi Christum animo colere satis esset, etiamsi papisticis sacris interessent, duas elegantissimas epistolas edidit: . . . alteram de papisticis sacerdotiis, Gerardo illi Ruffo cuius antea memini, quique abbatia quadam ac deinceps episcopatu post editum illum Parisiensem tumultum donatus, non modo postea satis rectum cursum non tenuit, verum etiam heram suam Navarrenam reginam paulatim pessumdedit.” CO 21, 127B. See further the seminal article by Frans Pieter Van Stam, “The Group of Meaux as First Target of Farel and Calvin’s Anti-Nicodemism,” BHR 68 (2006), 253–275. Concentrating on the earliest anti-Nicodemite works, especially Calvin’s Epistolae duae (1537), he describes the specific circumstances that led Farel and Calvin to speak out against their former brethren. 136 Jean Dupèbe, “Un document sur les persécutions de l’hiver 1533–1534 à Paris,” BHR 48 (1986), 405–417.

secret diplomacy and religious dissimulation, –

555

attacks on Marguerite and Gérard at the University of Paris in the course of 1533. Calvin must have been very deeply integrated in this circle, since, in a letter from the end of October 1533 from Paris to his friend François Daniel in Orleans, he writes: I am sending you the second little summary (epitome) by our G., to which, as an appendix, I will abridge in order to make easier to read what was cut off from those other commentaries (implied: that I already sent), unless time runs short. . . . I do not need to tell you that the times are turbulent; they speak for themselves. Beware that G.’s short summary does not fall into the wrong hands.137

Calvin reveals here that one or more works by Roussel were circulating in manuscript in evangelical circles during the early 1530s. Soon thereafter, Calvin was involved in soliciting Marguerite’s help to save Nicolas Cop in the fall of 1533. After Cop’s All Saint’s Day oration, Calvin was a wanted man at Paris. He visited Nérac in 1534 before fleeing to Renée of Ferrara’s court, a path already well worn by several of Marguerite’s protégés. During his stay at Strasbourg from 1538 to 1541, through his association with Johann Sturm, Calvin seems to have played some role in, or at least was adopted by association into, the Du Bellay diplomatic corps. The Du Bellays’ trust in Calvin was probably misplaced, for in 1539 he advised the German Protestants not to listen to Marguerite’s proposals when negotiating with the French, but to flatter and encourage her in order to get out of her what help they might, without committing themselves to any of her designs.138

137 Given the context, “G.” has to be Gérard [Roussel], since Calvin has just narrated the attacks on Maistre Gérard. “Mitto Epitomen alteram G. nostri, cui velut appendicem assuere decreveram quod ab illis prioribus Commentariis abruptum erat, nisi me tempus defecisset. . . . Ut non dicam haec esse tumultuaria, ipsa de se loquuntur. Epitomen cave temerè divulges.” Herminjard 3, no. 437, 103–106; 105; CO 10b, no. 18, col. 23–24. Calvin’s warning was well grounded, since shortly thereafter letters to “Lutherans” and “Geraldini” were found in Jean Morand’s possession, contributing to the heresy case against him. See Dupèbe, “Un document sur les persécutions de l’hiver 1533–1534 à Paris,” BHR 48 (1986), 406 and 414. 138 “Si reginam Navarrae conveniant [principum legati], erunt admonendi, ne eius consiliis auscultent. Quanquam expediet, illi Evangelii causam in genere commendari, ac indicari sic de eius pietate persuasos esse nostros principes, ut certo sperent sibi in hac legatione suffagaturam, utpote quae pro Christo et regno ipsius suscepta sit. Sic fortasse movebitur, quia spem de se conseptam fallere ipsam pudebit.” Calvin to [ Johann or Jacob] Sturm, 1 November 1539, Herminjard 6, no. 833, 121–122. Remarkably, Calvin’s willingness to cooperate with the French crown on the international stage altered radically from 1547–1549, which was precisely the period when Marguerite and her network were effectively sidelined at court. For an important reassessment of his episode, see

556

chapter eleven

Then, in April 1540, having heard positive reports about Gérard Roussel’s first steps as bishop of Oloron as well as about another prelate deemed evangelically inclined, Georges de Selve, bishop of Lavaur, Guillaume Farel asked Calvin to encourage them both with letters.139 Calvin had no confidence in these prelates and advised all his friends not to contact them. Thus, he called a halt to the practice of Zwingli, Oecolampadius, Bucer, Capito, Sigismund von Hohenlohe, Melanchthon, Luther, and others, who had given moral support to the leadership of their persecuted French brethren over the previous twenty years.140 Despite Calvin’s distrust of Marguerite and her prelate, there is evidence that Calvin wrote to her at least three times: once in 1540 and again in 1541, but only his 1545 letter remains.141 However, along with her one surviving letter to him from 1541 and other circumstantial evidence, one can begin to assess their relationship from Calvin’s Strasbourg period forward. By 1541, Calvin had established a reputation as one of the guiding Protestant theologians based on his Latin (1536 and 1539) and French (1541) Institutes and made his way onto the European political stage as an important participant at the Colloquy of Worms (1540), which failed to fulfill the emperor’s hope for confessional compromise. On 25 July 1541, Marguerite wrote to the young reformer: Calvin, . . . the king [Francis I] is extremely pleased with the good services that you and the others have done for him over there, about which he is well informed. You will have just heard about the celebration of the marriage [between] the duke of Cleves and my daughter. I beg you to

Michael W. Bruening, Calvinism’s First Battleground: Conflict and Reform in the Pays de Vaud, 1528–1559 (Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, 2005), 199–204. 139 “Rufus, praeceptor meus, fertur intentus esse Verbo adnunciando, eleemosynis, ac educandis aliquot in literis. Faxit Christus ut sanctè pergat! Vauriensis [Georges de Selve, bishop of Lavaur (1526–1541)] mirè commendatur ob interpretationem Pauli jugem ac juges conciones. Tu et alii, quos potestis nosse in opere Domini pergere, literis eos debetis solicitare ut diligentius et purius pergant. Christus Jesus omnes suae gloriae ut ex animo serviamus faciat!” Farel from Neuchâtel to Calvin at Strasbourg, 16 April 1540, Herminjard 6, no. 860, 209–210; CO 11, no. 215, col. 33. For a report of Georges de Selve’s having remembered the proposed religious concord of 1535 in 1540, see Bernard Roussel, “Martin Bucer et Jacques Sadolet: La concorde possible (Automne, 1535)?” BSHPF 122 (1976), 507–524. 140 “Gallis illis episcopis cur scribendum non putem, coram tibi indicabo. Magnam gratiam habeo fratribus quod meum consilium adeo aequis animis acceperunt. Quoniam tamen periculum est ne alii indignè ferant vos incepisse, non displiceret ut aliquantulum adhuc ea res differatur.” Calvin at Strasbourg to Farel à Neuchâtel, circa 13 May 1540, Herminjard 6, no 863, 223; CO 11, no. 218, cols. 40–41. 141 See appendix A and Jourda, Répertoire, nos. 809, [835], 850, and 871.

secret diplomacy and religious dissimulation, –

557

believe and to make known to all your friends that the king of Navarre and I consider ourselves very fortunate in this marriage since we think that God has given us a son after our heart and spirit, through whom we hope we will be able to do something to His honor and glory. I ask you that if you know of any way in which I can do some good that you will not spare me, and I assure you that I will employ myself with a good, full heart and will do for you and the others all that I can according to the power that God gives me. I beg you to continue to serve the king, as you have done until now . . . yours truly Marguerite.142

The tone of this letter is very familiar and intimates a long-standing relationship. However, Marguerite’s words are not to be taken wholly at face value. In the first place, Henri d’Albret, as explained above, hated the marriage forced upon him of his daughter to the duke of Cleves. Marguerite’s letter was intended to strengthen the Protestants’ trust in the new political union sealed by the marriage of her daughter. So what of her protestations to Calvin of allegiance and requests for future collaboration? Marguerite and Francis I certainly regarded this French pastor serving in Strasbourg as a valuable agent, who had helped scuttle the emperor’s plans as Worms in 1540 and could further strengthen French ties with the German Protestants. The problem was whether Calvin and Marguerite could ever work together, as Marguerite put it, with common heart and spirit to the honor and glory of God. Over the following years Marguerite seems to have been truly interested in maintaining relations with Calvin. She sent a member of her court at Nérac, the spiritualist Antoine Pocquet, first to Bucer and then to Calvin in 1541, where he remained until Calvin threw him out in 1544.143 During that time, Calvin monitored her whereabouts,144 but seems to have stayed aloof from overtures by evangelicals at court who desired his diplomatic services to aid the evangelical cause.145 Then, 142 Jourda, Répertoire, no. 851; CO 11, 62–63. The marriage took place in 1541, so this letter cannot be from 1540 as in CO. 143 George Hunston Williams, The Radical Reformation, third edition, Sixteenth Century Essays & Studies 15 (Kirksville, Missouri: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1992), 907, relates that the Libertine leaders Pocquet, Perceval, and Bertrand were all in Bucer’s and Pierre Brully’s homes in Strasbourg between 1541 and 1543. Pocquet then went to Geneva between 1542 and 1544 but was driven out. The Netherlanders evidently caused havoc in both Strasbourg and Geneva in 1544, resulting in their expulsion. 144 On 24 March 1543, Calvin informed Viret that M. de Beaumont could visit Marguerite at Nérac if he wished: “De Bellomontano nihil scribo, qui si ad Reginam proficisci cogitat, hac iter faciet. Est autem Regina ipsa Neraci.” Herminjard 8, no. 1213, 298. 145 Henry Heller, citing Herminjard 9, 280, notes that “In 1544 the Genevan ambassador

558

chapter eleven

in 1545, Calvin attacked Pocquet and Quintin, another spiritualist in Marguerite’s household, in his Contra la secte des Libertins (1545). Reports about Marguerite’s displeasure with this tract prompted Calvin to write his last known and only surviving letter to Marguerite. On 28 April 1545, Calvin justified his treatise saying that it was measured, anonymous, and necessary because, as God’s instrument for the edification of the church, he had to denounce evil doctrines and men likely to mislead the simple faithful.146 He thinks no less of her if she had harbored blasphemers at her court, because Christ too had had his Judas. His purpose in writing to her was to ensure the essential matter: her continuing political commitment to the evangelical cause. He writes in closing: After having heard the news of your discontent, I wanted to attempt to satisfy you as much as I am able, for no other reason than to avoid being the cause of your cooling or turning away from the good affection that you have shown up until now towards the poor faithful. . . . I beg the Lord Jesus to maintain you in his guard and to guide you by his spirit as much in prudence as in zeal to follow your holy vocation. Your very humble and obedient servant in our Lord, Jean Calvin147

Notably, Calvin never attacks Marguerite in this letter for her religious views, for dissimulating them, or worse, for simulating adherence to Catholic doctrines when she believed otherwise. Calvin’s anti-Nicodemite thesis that knowingly participating in the corrupt rites of the traditional church is a grievous offence to God would have required him to admonish her if he thought her to be guilty of this. In his life of Calvin, Beza certainly depicts Calvin as believing that Marguerite had been corrupted in her faith by Pocquet, Quintin, and Roussel.148 If, as

reported to the Council of Geneva that “. . . aujourd’huy Mons Le Cardinal Du Bellay moy az tenus propos de Monsr. Calvin pour aller quelque part pour les affères du Roy. Et si il se faict, j’espayre pourraz prouffiter à nostre religion.” Heller’s argument that Calvin continued to stay interested in helping the faithful in France politically is sound. However, all the evidence that he cites and we can find shows Calvin working through Protestant powers like Basel, not with the hand that was extended to him by Jean Du Bellay or Marguerite. See Heller, The Conquest of Poverty, 128–129. In 1544, Du Bellay’s ‘propos’ to the Genevan ambassador to use Calvin quite likely formed part of the evangelical faction’s attempt to break Francis I’s pro-Imperial policy, moving him towards union with the Schmalkaldic League and England. 146 CO 12, no. 634, 64–68; 68B. 147 CO 12, no. 634, col. 68B. 148 See note 135.

secret diplomacy and religious dissimulation, –

559

seems certain, Calvin thought so, in this letter he was dissimulating his condemning judgment of her. More surprising if he thought her to be thus corrupted, Calvin ascribes a vocation to Marguerite. He urges her as a powerful political figure to use her influence to further the church of God. He even praises her for having fulfilled that calling to date, and counsels her to continue with zeal and prudence. ‘Prudence’ was a loaded and revealing word for him to have used. While Calvin will denounce simulation and dissimulation in all matters to essential religion, he comes close here to invoking as a virtue a measured support for reform programs that takes into account the political circumstances and the political clout of the person he is addressing.149 This is not to say that Calvin is advocating a particular strategy of opportunistic or timely reform. Rather, his call for prudence is one of his few acknowledgments of the difficulties faced by those who risked having, as he recognized thankfully he did not, to prove their faith with “examinations or prison.” Calvin acknowledged that noble support was crucial for the survival of the evangelical movement in France: it was a steed he tried to bridle. How Marguerite reacted to Calvin’s letter is unknown. A letter from one of Calvin’s partisans in France from 1548 indicates that Pocquet was going about in Marguerite’s company denouncing Calvin.150 Aside from Baduel’s letters, there is no evidence that Marguerite’s circle and Calvin’s colleagues were ever again in contact until long after her death, when Theodore Beza made a trip to Jeanne d’Albret’s Béarn in 1560. While Calvin and his followers’ opinion of Marguerite may never have improved, both she and her chief preacher Gérard Roussel continued to use Calvin’s exegetical works late in life to enrich their thought.151 In adopting the doctrines of Calvin and other Protestant theologians, the evangelicals in Marguerite’s circle divorced the reformers’ positive doctrinal teachings from their destructive demand to reject the old church, attempting to use the former to transform the existing cult.

149 See Albert Autin, La crise du nicodémisme (1535–1545): un épisode de la vie de Calvin (Toulon: Paul Tissot, 1917) on Calvin’s special dispensation to nobles allowing them greater mercy for having polluted themselves so long as they use their power to the advancement of God’s kingdom. 150 Aegidius Michaux to “Monsieur Despeville” [John Calvin], on feast of St. Lawrence [10 August], 1548, CO 13: 27–28. 151 On the Calvinist tenor of Marguerite’s late poems, see Abel Lefranc, Les idées religieuses de Marguerite de Navarre d’après son œuvre poétique, les Marguerites et les dernières poésies (Paris, 1898; repr. Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1969).

560

chapter eleven

Calvin and Viret defined this as the contradictory and blasphemous life of the Nicodemite, but if Calvin thought this of Marguerite, in his letter of 1545 he was practicing a polite deception. While seeking to maintain her active support, he was simultaneously trying to win over her protégés to his allegiance. In 1550, Calvin published his De scandalis [Des scandales], in which he condemned by name for the first time Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa von Nettesheim, Étienne Dolet, François Rabelais, António de Gouveia, Bonaventure Des Périers, “and others like them,” writes Calvin, “whom I will not name for the present.”152 Even if there was some predating personal animus behind Calvin’s attack on these figures—he had collaborated with Des Périers on Olivétan’s 1535 Bible—he aimed not just at individuals but specifically at several of the most famous members of the network, who had propagated the evangelical faith in their literary works and who, moreover, as well-known figures, had served as models for those in France attracted to evangelical doctrines. Two sources point to the importance of these literary figures both as the symbolic leaders of French evangelicals as well as the chief obstacles whom Calvin felt had to be eliminated in his quest to establish the true faith in France. In 1538, a packet of letters was seized at Lyon. Apprehended were nine missives written by refugees at Geneva to their friends and family at home in Bordeaux. One correspondent included a copy of a letter by Farel to the “brothers at Geneva,” written from Basel shortly after he and Calvin had been driven out of Geneva. Another writer promised to send by separate cover copies of letters by Farel, Calvin, and Viret, which he hoped would console and edify the faithful in Bordeaux.153 The first thing to note is the early influence of this triumvirate of reformers154 on the faithful in France, well before Calvin and Viret 152 John Calvin, Des scandales: Édition critique, ed. Olivier Fatio, TLF 323 (Geneva: Droz, 1984), 137–140; John Calvin, Calvini opera selecta, ed. P. Barth and W. Niesel, 2nd ed., 5 vols. (Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1926–1952), vol. 2, 201. 153 Gabrielle Berthoud, “Lettres de réformés saisies à Lyon en août 1538,” in Études et documents inédits sur la Réformation en suisse romande (Lausanne: Imprimerie La Concorde, 1936; extract from Revue de théologie et de philosophie 1933 and 1936), 87–11; especially 89 and 109. There exist two other copies of Farel’s letter of consolation to the evangelicals at Geneva. Such letters evidently circulated widely. See CO 10, 2, col. 210 ff; Herminjard 5, no. 720, 33–37. 154 On the ‘triumvirate’ of reformers, see Heiko A. Oberman, “Calvin and Farel: The Dynamics of Legitimation in Early Calvinism,” Journal of Early Modern History 2 (1998), 32–60; also Reformation and Renaissance Review (1999), 7–40, whose subtitle inspires the title of the present section.

secret diplomacy and religious dissimulation, –

561

had established their popular reputations by publishing an impressive number of vernacular works. In another letter in the packet, André Zébédée, who had many friends among the evangelicals at the College of Guyenne in Bordeaux, wrote rather cryptically “I remember Dolet, Rabelais, and Marot well, but I am confounded when I recall what someone told me about them at Lyon.”155 What exactly astonished or even terrified (s’estonner) Zébédée is far from clear. The context seems to indicate that it was something far from laudable, which undermined his former good opinion of these authors. At Geneva, Calvin certainly had grave doubts about these three writers, even Marot, who, despite his signal contribution of his Psalms translations to the Reformed tradition, was forced from Geneva and demoted in the memory of the Reformed tradition.156 Equally striking, these three evangelical authors form a sort of rival triumvirate to Farel, Viret, and Calvin in the letters of these refugees from Bordeaux. Dolet, Rabelais, and Marot were, as discussed in chapter 10, three of the leading figures among the ‘Sons of Apollo’ whom Marguerite and the Du Bellay brothers had championed. These letters are witnesses to the first phase of a translatio imperii of leadership with the evangelical movement, as ordinary members turned abroad for direction and comfort. The second telling source is one of the final and most strident coq-àl’asne penned by Clément Marot, one that he elected never to publish: his Epistre du coq à l’asne à Lyon.157 In this poem from 1542, written just before his final exile, Marot advocates self-preservation by dissimulating (hiding) one’s dissenting religious views, even simulating adherence (conforming outwardly) to Catholic rites. Marot writes nominally to his friend “Lyon”—both Lyon Jamet and the city are meant—but the poem speaks to evangelicals everywhere.

155 “Il me souvient bien de Dolet, Rabelez, et Marot et je m’estonne quant je rememore ce qu’on m’en dit à Lyon.” See Gabrielle Berthoud, “Lettres de réformés saisies à Lyon en août 1538,” in Études et documents inédits sur la Réformation en suisse romande (Lausanne: Imprimerie La Concorde, 1936), 87–111; offprint from Revue de théologie et de philosophie 1933 and 1936. 156 See Gérard Defaux’s analysis of Beza’s veiled criticism of Marot and usurpation his place in the Geneva editions of the Psalms, Marot, OP 1, XXIX. 157 Unpublished, attributed to Marot circa 1540/41 by C. A. Mayer, Bibliographie des Œuvres de Clément Marot I: Manuscrits, THR 10 (Geneva: Droz, 1954), 78–85. Gérard Defaux dates the poem to 1542. See Marot, OP 2, 165–171 and notes on 943–946. As Mayer relates, not only did Marot’s poems spread through the many printed editions of his works, but also orally and through manuscript copies. For the importance of this genre of poetry, see chapter 10.

562 [l. 6] Il est fol, qui le col se casse S’il n’en a deux comme le veau. Et d’alleguer un cas nouveau, La question n’en est plus bonne. Pourquoy? notre mere Sorbonne Faict à tous veaulx avoir deux testes: Et s’ilz sont sottes comme bestes, Il faut aprendre les passaiges: Ung troy foys fol vault ung vray saige .... [l. 24] Ne parles point en genesvoys, Que la fumée ne t’aveugle .... [l. 45] Ne parlez point de l’Evangille, Si vous n’avez la langue agille. Pour Sorbonner, la bonne myne. Car l’on dict qu’on scent sa farine, Si l’on ne scet son Pathelin .... [l. 91] Que fera l’âme pecheresse? Je croy quel[l’] est en grand distresse Que son miroir est deffendu. L’antechrist n’est plus attendu: Nous l’avons, gardons qu’il eschappe. Baisez la pantoufle du pappe En disant votre patenostre: .... [l. 104] A Paris a l’âne son groing, La louve aussi, & ses louvetons, De peur qu’on ne vienne aux sermons Par le passaige sainct Landry. .... [l. 116] Il est deffendu de porter Livres de la saincte escripture: Cela fera que la friture Sera fort chere ce Karesme. Tu payeras tes beurre et cresme, Pour estre dict bon filz de vache. Ne souffre jamais qu’on attache Ta langue pour avoir bien dict, Car l’Inquisiteur a credit De nous chanter de profundis. Lyon, entendz ce que je dictz, Tu apprendras beaucoup soubz moy; .... [l. 135] Aussi ce n’est pas de merveilles Si je prens bonnet a oreilles: Je crains trop le froit aux tallons. L’on faict filer à recullons La verité par les cordiers, En faisant pour les Cordeliers

chapter eleven Anyone who breaks his own neck is a fool Unless he has two like a calf. And it is no longer a good idea To propose novelties. Why? Our mother, the Sorbonne Makes all calves have two heads And unless they are stupid as brutes They will learn the right passages. A fool thrice over is worth one truly wise. .... Don’t speak at all in Genevan, Lest the smoke blind you. .... Don’t speak at all of the gospel, Unless you have an agile tongue To theologize in the right manner. For it’s said that they smell a heretic If he doesn’t know his Pathelin .... What will the sinful soul do? I believe that she is in great misery Now that her Miroir has been condemned. We no longer wait for the Antichrist: We have him; let’s watch out lest he escape. Kiss the pope’s slipper While saying your Paternoster .... In Paris the ass wears a scowl The she-wolf and her wolflings too, For fear that anyone will arrive at the sermons Through “Saint Landry Way.” .... It is forbidden to carry about The books of Holy Scripture: That would make your fry-up Cost you dearly this Lent. You’ll pay for your butter and cream, In order to be called a good calf. Don’t ever permit them to transfix Your tongue for having spoken truly. For the Inquisitor has the power To sing us the De profundis. Lyon, attend to what I say, You will learn much from me. .... Thus it’s no marvel If I pull my hat over my ears I fear the tickle of the whip too much. They make the truth draw back By means of the rope-makers, All for the sake of the Cordeliers [Franciscans, who wear the knotted rope.]

secret diplomacy and religious dissimulation, –

563

In this poem Marot gives a sort of status report on the evangelical cause. Among other persons and events, he speaks of “l’âme pécheresse” (indicating Marguerite by the title of her 1531 Miroir de l’âme pécheresse) as being in danger, and alludes to the investigations following the evangelical preaching of François Landry in Paris, whom both Marguerite and Jean Du Bellay promoted and protected.158 His overriding theme is persecution and how he is going to respond to it. He advises his evangelical listener to follow his decision to forgo speaking like the Genevans (en genevoys, i.e., like the reformers there), to keep silent about the gospel, to pull his hat over his ears, and to go drinking “Adieu te diz, je m’en voys boyre” (final line 234), rather than risk the fire and whips of the Sorbonne, the inquisitor, and the friars. This poem was not Marot’s ultimate response to the religious situation in France, but it was emblematic of the plight of evangelicals there ever after. He would shortly flee again, landing in Geneva, where he was well received by Calvin as the useful translator of the Psalms. Marot’s lifestyle quickly got him into trouble and he had to leave. In 1544, he died miserably, almost alone, far from his friends and family. Like him, in the years leading up to and through the Wars of Religion, Bonaventure Des Périers, Étienne Dolet, François Rabelais, Pierre Caroli, Antoine Pocquet, Antoine Caracciolo, and many others whom Marguerite had supported were eventually crushed at home by persecution, while being denounced from abroad by Calvin and company: they all died similar isolated deaths, either in exile, be it internal or in foreign lands, or on the pyre. They hardly benefited by their religious dissent or were protected by dissembling their views, as Calvin alleged. Indeed, they suffered much more than Calvin ever did. His attacks on them helped to clear the terrain, ‘purifying’ the evangelical ranks of those leaders who were unwilling to renounce Rome openly. Moreover, they could not counter his attacks. Aside from a few furtive complaints by Antoine Fumée, Marguerite, Pocquet, and Rabelais,159 hardly a record survives of their anger at Calvin’s denunciations, except for his own avowals in the Excuse aux Nicodemites. Evangelicals living in France under the power of those who “kiss the pope’s slipper” could not refute Calvin’s charges of having compromised sinfully without courting a death sentence. 158 Nathaniel Weiss, “Épisodes de la Réforme à Paris: Maître François Landry curé de Sainte-Croix en la cité sous François Ier et Henri II (1540–1557),” BSHPF 37 (1888), 241–267; Droz, Chemins 1, 390–394. 159 See Rabelais’s one cryptic response to Calvin in Le quart livre, ed. Robert Marichal, TLF 10 (Geneva: Droz, 1947), 151–152, ll. 107–123, and introduction, XIII–XVII.

CONCLUSION

TOWARDS THE WARS OF RELIGION

France had a renaissance before the middle of the sixteenth century, but did it have a reformation? The widely accepted answer to this question should change in light of this study. The period before Calvin’s influence waxed should not be seen merely as an anarchic phase of genesis leading to him and the Reformed churches of France. Long before them, Marguerite and her network were promoting a reformation much like the Protestant ones that succeeded elsewhere. Inspired by the example of the German reformers, these evangelicals engaged in a multifaceted program of, opportunity permitting, public and clandestine activities to promote and fix within the realm a true and living faith in the gospel. In the end they failed to bring about their ultimate goal, the reform of the Gallican church under the king’s leadership. This group’s thirty-year-long campaign is a vital but missing link in the history of the Reformation in France. Marguerite and her network were the active proponents within the kingdom of the international evangelical movement emanating from Germany. They appropriated its doctrinal core and formulated a reforming agenda that sought its establishment. In trying to effect this renewal of religion, they formulated their program to suit their circumstances as well as to draw on the strengths of a variety of indigenous developments: late medieval episcopal reform programs, the laity’s burgeoning thirst for works of piety, the new texts and interpretive horizons opened up by humanist scholars, as well as the crown’s concerted effort to increase its hold over church and realm. Marguerite and her network only made limited gains. Far from being fatalists or naïve optimists, they correctly assessed that, given the heavy opposition of conservatives, their prospects for success were limited and rested mainly with the king. As the day when God would change the heart of the king kept being deferred, they tried as best they could to sustain a remnant or catacomb church within the corrupt structure of the established church and thus nurture the seeds of its eventual renewal. Unlike Farel, Calvin, and others who fled France, they were willing to accept living under “the torments of tyrants.” Some of these

566

conclusion

cells and sodalities of humanists, prelates, and nobles whom they nurtured would later participate in the French Wars of Religion. Marguerite and her closest advisors would have seen such armed conflict in the name of religion as a bitter turn of events: an undermining of obedience to the gospel, rather than the means to its restoration. As a result of their lack of success in moving Francis I and the court to support an evangelical reform, Marguerite and her network had no heirs to guard their memory or to tell their story from a patriotic perspective. At the end of the sixteenth century, the confessional victors looked back on Marguerite and her protégés through the smoke of heresy burnings and battles. As participants in the horrors of the Wars of Religion, they judged Marguerite and her circle for what they had failed or refused to become: martyrs to the cause. Modern historians of all confessional and non-confessional stripes have in one way or another reprised the Genevan perspective on Marguerite and her network expressed in Calvin’s anti-Nicodemite tracts, Jean Crespin’s Histoire des martyrs, the Histoire ecclésiastique, as well as Beza’s Vita Calvini and Icones.1 In this line of interpretation, Marguerite and her immediate satellites were, as Charles Schmidt called them, ‘half-Protestants.’2 From the Reformed perspective, early French evangelicals came far enough to see the light and deserved praise for having fostered the first flowering of reform, but equally merited final condemnation for having abandoned it. Translated into the terms of Imbart de la Tour, Lucien Febvre, and recent interpreters following

1 The first book of the Histoire ecclésiastique notes several occasions when Marguerite intervened on behalf of the persecuted, which have been touched on in passing in this study, but she is not credited with a leading role in reform. Rather, she, like Marot, Guillaume Du Bellay, and other early evangelicals, is depicted as having ‘fallen back into idolatry,’ and having ‘obeyed the king more than God.’ See Beza, Histoire ecclésiastique, vol. 1, 12, 13, 26–29, and especially 36–37, and his Vita Calvini, CO 21, cols. 119–172, esp. 123 and 127. Beza, however, paints a slightly more flattering picture of Marguerite in his 1580 Icones, id est verae imagines virorum doctrina simul et pietate illustrium (“Anvers: Jean Remy” [Geneva: Jean de Laon]); trans. Simon Goulart, Les vrais portraits de homes illustres en piété et doctrine (Geneva: Jean de Laon, 1581). See the modern reprint, Théodore de Bèze, Les vrais portraits de homes illustres en piété et doctrine: Avec les 30 portraits supplémentaires de l’édition de 1673, ed. Alain Dufour (Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1986), ii–iii of the introduction. 2 Schmidt, Gérard Roussel, 6, 126, and passim.

towards the wars of religion

567

them, these French evangelicals lacked some crucial quality—whether it be courage, leadership, or a unifying doctrinal system. Such shortcomings, so their analysis goes, resulted in an inability or lack of will to promote reformation. Staunch Catholic and Lutheran historians of the sixteenth century echoed the Genevan view, with important differences, which most modern interpreters have not accepted. Both traditions considered Marguerite and her circle as the leading carriers of the Reformation in France, without whose efforts the Reformed churches could not have risen. In 1580, Johann Sturm, the Protestant rector of the gymnasium at Strasbourg and a former agent in the Du Bellay diplomatic corps, claimed that whatever good (i.e., Protestant commitment) there was in France was due to a direct transmission from Lefèvre, Roussel, and Marguerite, via her daughter Jeanne d’Albret, to Henry of Navarre.3 Writing in response to the Genevan Histoire ecclésiastique, the colorful Catholic apologist and former Reformed Protestant from Aquitaine, Florimond de Raemond, attributed the birthing (naissance) of the French Reformation largely to the efforts of Marguerite and her almoner Gérard Roussel.4 Both Sturm and Raemond had access to sources and eyewitness reports that the Genevans did not, most of which are now lost. Nevertheless, none of these historians—Catholic, Protestant, or

3 “Capitonis vero et Buceri tanta statim fama erat: ut Iacobus Faber Stapulensis, et Gerardus Rufus clam e Gallia profecti, Capitonem et Bucerum audirent: et de omnibus doctrinae praecipuis locis, cum his differerent, missi a Margareta Francisci Regis sorore, Navarrae Regina, avia huius Henrici Regis: cui mater Ioanna, hanc quam nunc tuetur, haereditatiam doctrinam atque Religionem tradidit. Quocirca id quod in Gallia in religione boni est, id prope ex hoc fonte derivatum est: et Evangelica vitis in Gallicis Ecclesiis, aliquid etiam germinis ex nostra urbe accepit, cuius fructus ex illis Ecclesiis non facile deperibit.” Johann Sturm, Quarti antipappi tres partes priores [Antipappus quartus] (Neapoli Palatinorum [Neustadt], Matthaei Harnisch, 1580), 8 (B1v). 4 In a chapter entitled “Les premiers Lutheriens accueillis et fauorisez de la Royne Marguerite soeur du Roy,” Raemond summarized how the confessional historians of his day viewed Marguerite: “Cela est notamment marqueé par tous les historiens de l’un et de l’autre party, que ceste Princesse seule fut cause, sans y penser mal, de la conversation des Lutheriens François, et que l’Eglise qui depuis s’est attribuée le nom de reformée, n’en eut esté estouffée dans le berceau: Car outre qu’elle leur prestoit l’oreille à leur propos, qui du commencement estoient specieux, et non si hardis que depuis.” L’histoire de la naissance . . . de l’hérésie de ce siècle. Rouen, 1623 [first edition: Paris: Charles Chastellain, 1605], 848. In this passage, Raemond exaggerates the role attributed by Reformed historians to Marguerite. It was typical of Catholics to see her, also in exaggerated fashion, as the sole reason that the Reformation was ‘unfortunately’ not killed in the cradle. That was not what the Histoire ecclésiastique argued, but what Raemond, like his conservative forerunners among Marguerite’s contemporaries, extrapolated from the evidence of her protection of the heterodox.

568

conclusion

Reformed—had direct access to the inner circle of Marguerite’s network or sought to tell their story from their perspective. This study has drawn as close to Marguerite’s evangelical network as the sources will allow. Its findings largely confirm Sturm and Raemond’s view that Marguerite’s network was actively trying to promote a reformation. Moreover, this study demonstrates, through detailed examples, their intentions and major projects. In the first place, Marguerite’s personal role as a reformer has been clarified. Pierre Jourda, like the Histoire ecclésiastique and Florimond de Raemond, reprised the opinion of Claude Baduel that Marguerite turned away from reform late in her life. Jourda and Raemond assert that she recognized the errors of her ways, re-embracing the Catholic faith of her youth. Their interpretations put a positive Catholic spin on the views of Baduel and the author of the Histoire ecclésiastique who argued that in the 1540s she was corrupted by Roussel, Pocquet, and Quintin into participating in Catholic rites that she knew to be false. Such assertions about a change in Marguerite’s religious beliefs, in effect an abandonment or withdrawal from the core evangelical doctrines she had championed up until then, cannot be fully assessed for lack of direct evidence from her or her entourage. But there is certainly no good evidence to suggest that this was true. What is certain and suspect is that these accounts date Marguerite’s supposed conversion or perversion to the late 1530s and after, which was precisely the period when her direct influence at court was diminishing before being finally extinguished with the accession of Henry II. If, as Claude Baduel claimed, Marguerite’s favor towards him and his brethren had declined somewhat by 1549, the chief reason was not, as he asserted, the influence of “certain wicked men.”5 Baduel’s view, which echoes Calvin’s attack on the ‘Nicodemites’ and ‘Libertines’ in her entourage, does not square with the evidence. As has been shown in chapter 11, Marguerite played a desperate political game to induce Francis I to break with Rome and thereby establish the evangelical faith within France at the very end of his reign, just as the Council of Trent had begun to meet. So too during her final years, Roussel remained at her side in the Midi and, in the face of strong local opposition, pursued his quiet but nonetheless daring reformation of religious education, alms, the cult of the saints, confession, and the Mass; a project for which he

5

See chapter 2.

towards the wars of religion

569

drew upon the ideas of Calvin and other reformers. What Marguerite’s Reformed critics interpreted as her loss of ardor was simply a loss of power. Their accounts smack of the censorious ingratitude of clients who have survived the fall of their patron, fled to safer havens abroad, and there enjoyed a certain success. They could now recount their tales without fear of being contradicted by their former brethren, whom they condemned and who, in turn, had to suffer in silence. The scope and importance of Marguerite’s support for a reformation is revealed in the deeds of the network that she cultivated. Reconstructing its membership and collective action is a major undertaking. This study has laid the foundations for such research. The net has been cast as widely as possible when looking for evidence, since few primary sources generated by the network survive. Three keys or perspectives have proved essential for interpreting the evidence coherently. Persecution. Evangelicals lived an embattled existence. They were perpetually under the threat of investigation, prosecution, loss of goods or honor, and even imprisonment, banishment, or death. Any study of this period that does not make this fact a grounding point for interpreting their words and deeds will make nonsense of their individual careers and more generally of the evangelical movement. The result would be akin to writing the history of Communist agitators under the Czars or Democratic dissenters under the Soviet regime as though they operated in a free marketplace of ideas. Such a comparison may be overdrawn, yet most scholars acknowledge the hostile climate in France without ever really taking it into account in their analysis. They too often interpret the evangelicals’ public utterances as all they had to say and their deeds as all that they would have done. To complicate matters, persecution was not ever consistent or complete during the reign of Francis I. So long as evangelicals stopped short of insurrection, that is, attacking the established religious order directly, as did iconoclasts and the placardists of 1534, they had a reasonable chance of surviving. Moreover, they rightly entertained the hope that they might be able to convince authorities to adopt their vision of renewal, since many of their members held positions of considerable influence close to the crown. Therefore, one must continually take a barometer reading of the climate of persecution whenever one attempts to gauge the meaning of the evangelicals’ carefully calculated actions, utterances, and silences. Politics. The Reformation is rightly described on one level as a political event, in as much as secular powers played the preponderant role in either suppressing or institutionalizing reform. No less so in France,

570

conclusion

Francis I’s changing policy and the succession of advisors who shaped it must always be kept in view, since royal orders conditioned the climate of persecution more than any other factor. Moreover, international affairs had important effects on the pace and severity of policing against heresy within France. Believing that the political arena was where their fate would ultimately be decided, evangelicals in Marguerite’s network sought to address Francis’s dynastic ambitions in such a way as to create the conditions favorable to the reception of their views. The network’s involvement in shaping and enacting the crown’s foreign policy is as essential a part of their story as their publishing of religious books and promoting of evangelical preachers and prelates. Perception—Self-Perception. Marguerite and her protégés were recognized as a distinct group by their enemies as well as their allies abroad. Moreover, they had a clear self-consciousness as a group. The name given to them in this study, the Navarrian Network, may be a modern invention, a placeholder, but their existence was real. This self-identity was further manifest in their use of distinctive evangelical phrases that expressed their guiding ideas and served as a code for mutual identification. The similarity of their lexicon to the one employed by reformers in the Empire and Switzerland testifies to their common cause with the early Europe-wide evangelical movement. This ‘in-group’ vocabulary paralleled the abusive terms “heretic,” “Lutheran,” and “Nicodemite” employed against them by their enemies and rivals. The legacy of Marguerite and her network remains an open question. This study has suggested that by nurturing semi-clandestine evangelical cells on the local level they established the roots of the future Reformed churches. It is a hypothesis that warrants further study. Several reports depict Marguerite’s court as a trend-setting example for others. In his funeral oration in honor of Marguerite, her secretary Charles de SainteMarthe defended her widely noticed practice of discussing doctrine with circles of learned men at her court.6 Florimond de Raemond reported, based on eyewitness accounts, that Marguerite and her husband used to hold secret “manducations,” or evangelical celebrations of the Eucharist,

6

Charles de Sainte-Marthe, Oraison funèbre de la mort de l’incomparable Marguerite, royne de Navarre et duchesse d’Alençon, in Marguerite de Navarre, Heptaméron des Nouvelles de très illustre princesse Marguerite d’Angoulême, reine de Navarre, 4 vols., ed. A. Le Roux de Lincy and Anatole de Montaiglon (Paris: Eudes, 1880), vol. 1, 69–74.

towards the wars of religion

571

during which the bread and wine was distributed to all communicants, a practice which he claims was widely copied.7 As Calvin argued, their example was an ambiguous one. In a letter from 1555, Jeanne d’Albret recalled that on one occasion her father interrupted Marguerite while she was in private devotions with Roussel and “Farel,” slapped her on the cheek, threatened Jeanne with a beating, and forbade mother and daughter from meddling in doctrine ever again.8 That experience, Jeanne explained, was why she had hid her commitment to the Reformed cause until the death of her father that very year. This one domestic scene, which contradicts Raemond’s depiction of Henri d’Albret’s commitment to the evangelical cause or at least testifies to his change of heart, epitomizes the fate of evangelicals in early Reformation France: they were either scared off by persecution or forced underground. Even Jeanne, who was professing her adherence to the Reformed cause in this letter, would wait another five years, until just after the death of Henry II, to declare her faith openly. The Navarrian Network’s ambiguous legacy is further revealed when one inspects the long list of those members or their heirs who were active during the Wars of Religion. One finds them in both the Royalist (moderate Catholic) and Huguenot camps but rarely among the Guise-led intransigent Catholic party. Jeanne d’Albret’s eventual leadership among the Huguenots is well known. Marguerite’s highest ranking protégé in Francis I’s government, François Olivier (d. 1560),

7

Discussing a period before 1533 when Marguerite’s Miroir was censured, Raemond writes: “Mais comme des comedies de sa sale, on l’avoit conduit aux exhortation de sa chambre: aussi de ces prieres on le fit descendre aux manducations dans la cave, ou pour le moins ès lieux secrets de la monnaoye, qui est sur la pente du taulus du chasteau de Pau. Ainsi apelloient-ils lors leur ceremonie, laquelle à present ils nomment Coene, dont j’escriray la forme cy apres au livre suivant: [In margin: La Royne de Navarre à la Cour. Le sieur de Burie lieutenant du Roy de Guienne.].” L’histoire de la naissance, 849–850; for a further discussion of other secret meetings by evangelicals, some of which the king and queen of Navarre attended, in which participants read confessions of faith from Germany and Geneva, prayed, sang the Paternoster and the Credo in Latin, and participated in other manducations, see his “La premiere forme de l’église calvinist, et de leur manducation au lieu de la cène,” 910–917. 8 Jeanne’s letter, which survives in a copy whose authenticity has been doubted, is the only surviving testimony from her about her mother’s religious life or influence on her. See Nancy Lyman Roelker, Queen of Navarre: Jeanne d’Albret 1528–1572 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968), 127; and for discussion of the authenticity of the letter, full text and translation, David M. Bryson, “The Vallant Letters of Jeanne d’Albret: Fact or Forgery?” French History 13 (1999), 16–186, with further discussion in idem, Queen Jeanne and the Promised Land: Dynasty, Homeland, Religion and Violence in Sixteenth-Century France, Studies in Intellectual History 97 (Leiden: Brill, 1999).

572

conclusion

was forced into retirement from his post as chancellor of France by Henry II. After Henry’s death, Catherine de Médicis brought him back to court, where he and Coligny wrote the amnesty for the Protestants after the “conjuration d’Amboise” (1560). Olivier’s younger brother Antoine (d. 1571), bishop of Lombez, later embraced the Reformed faith. At the Colloquy of Poissy (1561), three of the seven moderate bishops participating on the Catholic side, all of them suspect to conservatives, had strong connections back to the network: Jean de Monluc, bishop of Valence and Die; Antonio Caracciolo, bishop of Troyes; and Jean de Saint-Gelais, bishop of Uzès.9 Among the Protestant delegates to Poissy, too, was a sizable group whose alma mater was Marguerite’s city and University of Bourges: Pierre Bouquin, François Perussel, Augustin Marlorat, and Theodore Beza. Jean de L’Espine, who also had a Bourges connection, abandoned the Catholic side and joined the ranks of the Reformed at Poissy. All of these men had long ago passed out of the orbit of Marguerite’s network, but they had started their road to conversion in the evangelical circles protected by her. By the end of Henry II’s reign, the religious conflict had become significantly more polarized than in the long years of Marguerite and her network’s half-public, half-clandestine campaign for reformation. The advent of crushing persecution, of underground Reformed churches from 1555 onwards, and of noble protectors for the cause closed that era, creating the conditions that would soon lead to armed conflict. Before the storm broke, the memory of Marguerite and her network was invoked as sort of via media once Henry II’s fortuitous death—coming just the moment as he was about to turn even more seriously to eradicating heresy—opened a brief period of respite from persecution for those seeking a moderate, royal reformation. In 1559, shortly after Henry’s death, a former servant of Marguerite appealed to Catherine de Médicis to join the Reformed cause, imploring her to follow Marguerite’s example, which, he argued, should be dear to her since the queen of Navarre had championed her long ago when

9 Donald Nugent, Ecumenism in the Age of the Reformation: The Colloquy of Poissy, Harvard Historical Studies 89 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1974). Among the eight French bishops investigated by the Roman Curia as Calvinists after Poissy, in addition to Monluc, Caracciolo, and Saint-Gelais, were Claude Régin, Marguerite’s sometime master of requests and, later, Roussel’s successor as bishop of Oloron, and Louis d’Albret, bishop of Lescar in Jeanne d’Albret’s Béarn. See Antoine Degret, Procès de huit évêques français suspects de Calvinisme (Paris, 1904); offprint from Revue des questions historiques, 1904.

towards the wars of religion

573

Henry had been ready to divorce her for failing to produce a child.10 In 1562, when Johann Sturm appealed to Jean de Monluc, Catherine de Médicis’s favorite bishop, to defend the Reformed cause, he invoked the days of their youth in the early 1530s when they had heard the sermons of Gérard Roussel together in Paris and Monluc had more boldly embraced “the truth.”11 With the outbreak of war in that year, however, the memory of Marguerite and her network as well as their desire for a moderate, royal reformation was to fade quickly as a new generation replaced the old guard and the fires of a religious civil war hardened hearts and fixed confessional identities.

10 Saulnier, V.-L., “Marguerite de Navarre, Catherine de Médicis et les Psaumes de Marot: Autour de la lettre dite de Villemadon,” BHR 37 (1975), 349–376. 11 “Novi te anno trigesimo tertio et quarto, quo tempore Gerardus Rufus Lutetiae in aula concionabatur, et tametsi vox tua interquievit aliquot annis, tamen tum libere sonuit vertitatem Domini.” Johann Sturm to Jean de Monluc, bishop of Valence and Die, 17 June 1562, CO 18, no. 3420 [incorrectly dated to 1561]. Noted by Jean Rott, “Le recteur strasbourgeois Johann Sturm et les Protestants français,” in idem, Investigationes historicae: Églises et société au XVIe siècle; Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kirchen- und Sozialgeschichte, 2 vols., ed. Marijn Kroon and Marc Lienhard (Strasbourg: Oberlin, 1986), vol. 2, 43–61. On the attempts in 1561–1562 by Odet de Châtillon, Jean de Monluc, Antonio Caracciolo—all of whom had strong connections to Marguerite and the Du Bellay brothers—as well as the cardinal of Lorraine to find a ‘royal’ Gallican solution to the religious crisis, see Alain Tallon’s fascinating article, “Gallicanism and Religious Pluralism in France in the Sixteenth Century,” in The Adventure of Religious Pluralism in Early Modern France: Papers from the Exeter conference, April 1999, ed. Keith Cameron et al. (Oxford: Peter Lang, 2000), 15–30, esp. 19–23.

APPENDIX A

ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO THE CORRESPONDENCE OF MARGUERITE OF NAVARRE

The correspondence of Marguerite of Navarre has been extensively studied, but much remains to be done. Scores of scholars have edited portions of this corpus with varying precision. In 1930, Pierre Jourda published a catalogue of her letters, his Répertoire de la Correspondance de Marguerite de Navarre. This inventory and its rich notes provided the basis for his seminal study of her life and writings. Realizing that he had not closed the subject of her correspondence or life, Jourda invited scholars to continue his efforts.1 Since then, many more letters have been discovered. The eminent literary historian, V.-L. Saulnier contributed “additions and corrections” to Jourda’s Répertoire in fifteen detailed articles (listed in the abbreviations), which are in toto longer than the Répertoire and yet only cover a third of Marguerite’s known letters. The remainder awaits similar thorough study. This appendix lists, in ascending chronological order, all of Saulnier’s additions and corrections as well as others made by the present author. It totals some 530 entries. Saulnier and I have assigned new dates and serial numbers to many of the letters first noted by Jourda. An index of all changes to the numbers of letters in Jourda’s Répertoire follows the list of additions and corrections. Though not exhaustive, this appendix should contribute to a new Répertoire, further studies of Marguerite’s correspondence, and, future editions of her unedited or poorly edited letters. Each entry begins with a serial number assigned by Jourda, Saulnier, or the present author, with cross-reference in parenthesis to older numbers. Thereafter, the usual information, when known, is presented: date, place of writing, author, addressee, MS location, printed editions, plus occasional additional notes, including references to secondary literature, notably Saulnier’s articles. All inferred information is in square brackets. Entries are ordered by date. Letters with approximate dates appear at the earliest point they are thought to have been written. As a result, some Jourda and Saulnier’s letters appear out of their original numerical sequence either because they have been re-dated in the interim or because their original numeral order did not actually correspond to the chronological sequence they had established. Large discrepancies are

1 For Jourda’s discussion and list of the extensive archival and published sources that he consulted, see Répertoire, xvi–xxxvii. He readily admitted that he had not exhausted all the holdings likely to contain her correspondence. Notably, aside from checking the catalogues for Bern and Munich, he ignored archives in Germanic-speaking countries, relying on but a few published sources.

576

appendix a – additions and corrections

signaled with cross-references. Lastly, to clarify the editing situation of each letter mentioned below, a “Yes” or “No” answer is given to three questions: 1) Is the letter “New,” that is, missing in Jourda’s Répertoire and hence catalogued for the first time either by Saulnier or this appendix? 2) Is the letter “Extant,” in a manuscript or early printed exemplar (as opposed to a “lost” letter, which is only mentioned in some other source)? 3) Has the letter been “Edited,” that is, if extant, has it been edited and thus made accessible for study? The results of this cumulative effort are as follows. Known Letters. Jourda cataloged 1,143 letters from published and manuscript sources, including both extant and lost letters. Relying exclusively on modern editions of sources, Saulnier added another 160 or so letters to the tally. He provided notes on the content and context of over 200 more letters known to Jourda, often leading to their re-dating. This appendix adds further corrections to Jourda’s and Saulnier’s works plus 101 letters listed here for the first time from both edited and manuscript sources. The latter are numbered 10001 and higher. The total of Marguerite’s known correspondence now stands, after a few consolidations and cancellations of spurious letter references, at about 1,400. Slightly over half of these letters are extant. Edited letters. Marguerite’s edited correspondence is scattered in over 140 published works, ranging in scope from journal articles to the monumental twenty-two-volume Letters and Papers Foreign and Domestic of the Reign of Henry VIII. François Génin published a large portion of Marguerite’s extant correspondence, 322 letters, in his groundbreaking two-volume edition of 1841–1842. His edition contains chiefly Marguerite’s epistolary exchange with Francis I and Anne de Montmorency. After partial publication by PhilippeAugust Becker, three others scholars, Christine Martineau, Michel Veissière, and Henry Heller, re-edited Marguerite’s famous correspondence with Bishop Guillaume Briçonnet, totaling some 123 letters, in a standard-setting critical edition. Beyond these two editions, traces of Marguerite’s correspondence are found and continue to surface in ones, twos, and threes (rarely more) in journal articles and in the edited correspondence of institutions, like the Parlement of Paris, or important figures, such as François de Tournon, Martin Bucer, Jean Du Bellay, and the many ambassadors to and from France. The second section of the bibliography, which is devoted to Marguerite’s correspondence, lists all the major printed sources consulted by Jourda, Saulnier, and the present author and constitutes a quasi-complete list of her edited correspondence. Unpublished letters. Of the letters listed by Jourda, Saulnier, and, for the first time, in this appendix, scores of her extant letters or the primary sources mentioning lost letters remain unpublished. No systematic survey of these exists. There are surely many more letters awaiting discovery. In his Répertoire, Jourda lists all the manuscripts he knew to contain portions of her correspondence. He primarily examined archives in Paris. Though not exhaustive, he caught most of the letters housed there and noted references to letters farther afield provided by other scholars. Several of the works that have appeared since Jourda’s study contain archival references to further unedited letters. Following all those leads, a great deal of research will have to be conducted in French provincial archives and especially in archives outside of France before we gain

to the correspondence of marguerite of navarre

577

a solid idea of how much more of her correspondence exists. For this study, some new discoveries have been made in French and American collections, and are noted below. The section of the bibliography devoted to Marguerite’s correspondence lists the manuscript sources consulted for this study that have yielded new information. Additions and Corrections For full references to the short titles employed in the notes, consult the abbreviations and the second section of the bibliography, which is devoted to Marguerite’s correspondence. 10001 – n.d. – Marguerite to X – Book-seller Traces Écrites (Neussargues, France) catalogue, 5 January 2007. “Lettre relative aux droits de sépulture de Guillaume de Monfrebeuf à Ayen (Corrèze). Les droits ont été contestés par les autorités locales et la reine intervient pour obtenir leur rétablissement. Reine de Navarre, sœur de François premier.” New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: No. 10002 – 9 February – Lyon – Marguerite to M. le Seneschal – BnF Clairambault 1064, “Mélanges,” fol. 182. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: No. 10003 – [1515], 23 August – Amboise – Marguerite to the Parlement of Paris – AN X1A 9322, no. 75. Reference in Clémencet, Parlement, no. 982, 170: “Lettre de Marguerite d’Angoulême demandant au Parlement de protéger les religieux Dominicains réformés du Mans contre les religieux non réformés qui cherchent à empêcher la réforme.” New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: No. 2 (J: 2; S: 2) – [1518], 4 March – Marguerite to Charles II, duke of Savoy – Turin, Archivio di Stato, Lettere Principi forestieri, Francia, Anni diversi, Mazzo 12. Jourda, “Marguerite de Navarre, Lettres inédits,” no. 1, 103–104. Saulnier 1972. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 5 (J: 5; S: 5) – [1519, December] – Marguerite to the Cathedral Chapter of Bourges – Raynal 3, 286. Saulnier 1977, no. 54.1. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 12 (J: 12) – [1520], 26 December – Blois – Marguerite to the Parlement of Paris – BnF N.a.fr. 8452, fol. 156. Ritter, no. 2. Jourda, Répertoire, no. 12, 6–7. See also nos. 14 and 10005, Clémencet, Parlement, no. 1080, Marguerite to the Parlement of Paris, 15 January 1521. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 10004 – [1521], 5 January – Paris – The Parlement of Paris to Marguerite – AN X1A 9324A, no. 69. Reference in Clémencet, Parlement, no. 1424: “Lettre du Parlement à la duchesse d’Alençon, la prévenant que, pour obéir à la déclaration royale réservant aux gens d’Église les offices de conseillers clercs, et en vue du bon fonctionnement de la justice, la cour a différé la réception

578

appendix a – additions and corrections

de Philibert Masurier, déjà marié, à un office de conseiller clerc dont il se prétendait pourvu par le roi.” Not the same as no. 13. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: No. 10005 – [1521], 15 January – Romorantin – Marguerite to the Parlement of Paris – AN X1A 9322, no. 202. Reference in Clémencet, Parlement, no. 1080. Cf. Marguerite’s letters to the parlement, Jourda no. 12, 26 December 1520, and Jourda no. 14, 10 February 1521. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: No. 13 (J: 13) – [1521, after 15 January] – Paris – The Parlement of Paris to Marguerite – Lost letter. Mentioned in response, no. 14. Date: This letter must be after Marguerite’s letter of 15 January 1521 to the Parlement demanding that they cease their opposition to the reception of Le Masuyer. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 14 (J: 14) – [1521], 10 February – Marguerite to the Parlement of Paris – BnF N.a.fr. 8452, fol. 163. Ritter, no. 3. Jourda no. 14, 7. See no. 10005, AN X1A, 9322, no. 202, Clémencet, Parlement, no. 1080, for Marguerite’s previous letter to the parlement on 15 January 1521, demanding Le Masuyer’s reception. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 10006 – [1521], 18 February – Paris – Marguerite to the Parlement of Paris – AN X1A 9324A, no. 73. Reference in Clémencet, Parlement, no. 1428. “Lettre du Parlement à la duchesse d’Alençon lui annonçant la réception de Philibert Masurier à l’office de conseiller clerc dont le roi l’a pourvu, et la priant d’intervenir auprès du roi pour que soit hâtée l’expédition de l’édit réservant aux gens d’Église de tels offices.” Cf. Clémencet, Parlement, no. 1427, [28 January?] 1521: “Lettres du Parlement au chancelier, lui [Duprat] annonce la réception de Philibert Masurier à l’office de conseiller clerc dont le roi l’avait pourvu, et lui demandant de hâter l’expédition de l’édit réservant ces offices aux gens d’Église, et de lui envoyer la bulle originale relative aux clercs.” Autre destinataire: l’Amiral de Bonnivet, X1A 9324A, no. 72. Cf. Clémencet, Parlement, no. 1426, 12 January 1521: “Lettre du Parlement au Roi lui annonçant que la cour, pour lui obéir, a décidé de recevoir Philibert Masurier en l’office de conseiller clerc bien qu’il soit marié, et lui demandant de lui envoyer, pour les faire publier, les lettres royaux réservant aux gens d’Église les offices de conseillers clercs, afin de remédier à la diminution du nombre de ces conseillers.” New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: No. 15 (J: 15; S: 15) – [1521, 4–10 June – Dijon] – Marguerite to Guillaume Briçonnet – BnF F.fr. 11495, fol. 1r. Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 1, 25. Saulnier 1977 for place. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 16 (J: 16; S: 16) – [1521], 12 June – Meaux – Guillaume Briçonnet to Marguerite – BnF F.fr. 11495, fols. 1r–3v. Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 2, 26–29. Saulnier 1977. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 16.1 (J: 17; S: 16.1) – [1521, c. 12 June – Meaux] – Michel d’Arande to Marguerite – Lost letter. Mentioned in no. 18. Saulnier 1977. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No.

to the correspondence of marguerite of navarre

579

16.2 (S: 16.2) – [1521, after 12 June – Dijon?] – Marguerite to Philiberte de Savoie – Lost letter. Saulnier 1977. Date: a few days after 12 June. Allusion in 16.3, Marguerite to Briçonnet telling him that her aunt “has had her share” of the treatises that Briçonnet had been sending to Marguerite. Thus, Marguerite had forwarded a copy of letter no. 16 to Philiberte de Savoie with a cover letter of her own. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 16.3 (J: 16bis; S: 16.3) – [1521, after 12 June – Meaux] – Guillaume Briçonnet to Marguerite – Lost letter. Mentioned in Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 2A, 29. Saulnier 1977 for place. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 16.4 (J: 17bis; S: 16.4) – [1521, after 12 June – Meaux] – Michel d’Arande to Marguerite – Lost letter. Mentioned in no. 18. Saulnier 1977. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 16.5 (S: 16.5) – [1521, after 13 June – Argilly] – Marguerite to Philiberte de Savoie – Lost letter. Saulnier 1977. Alluded to in no. 18, Marguerite to Briçonnet. Date: Shortly after 13 or 14 July. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 16.6 (S: 16.6) – [1521, end of June] – Philiberte de Savoie to Marguerite – Lost letters. Saulnier 1977. Saulnier supposes that Marguerite continued to send copies of her spiritual correspondence with Briçonnet to her aunt in Savoy until the latter’s death on 4 April 1524. This number stands in for all those lost letters. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 18 (J: 18; S: 18) – [1521, c. 1 July – Argilly?] – Marguerite to Guillaume Briçonnet – BnF F.fr. 11495, fols. 3v–4r. Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 3, 29–30. Saulnier 1977. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 19 (J: 19; S: 19) – [1521], 10 July – Meaux – Guillaume Briçonnet to Marguerite – BnF F.fr. 11495, fols. 4r–6r. Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 4, 30–32. Saulnier 1977. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 19.1 (S: 19.1) – [1521, c. 10 July – Meaux] – Michel d’Arande to Marguerite – Lost letter. Mentioned in no. 20. Saulnier 1977. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 19.2 (S: 19.2) – [1521, soon after 10 July] – Marguerite to Philiberte de Savoie – Lost letter. Saulnier 1977 for date. Alluded to in no. 19, Briçonnet to Marguerite. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 20 (J: 20; S: 20) – [1521, c. 15 July – Dijon?] – Marguerite to Guillaume Briçonnet – BnF F.fr. 11495, fol. 6r–v. Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 5, 33–34. Saulnier 1977 for date instead of, as per Jourda and Martineau, “après le 10 juin.” New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 20.1 (S: 20.1) – [1521, mid-July] – Camp d’Attigny – Clément Marot to Marguerite – Marot, Épistres, ed. Mayer, 105. Saulnier 1977. Verse letter, “Lettre mal faicte et mal escripte,” from Marot to Marguerite from the war front.

580

appendix a – additions and corrections

Originally published as “L’épistre et ordonnance du camp de monseigneur d’Alençon.” s.l.s.d. [1521]. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 20.2 (S: 20.2) – [1521, mid-July? – Dijon?] – Marguerite to Jacques de Dinteville (Deschenais) – Lost letter. Saulnier 1977. Allusion in Marguerite to Montmorency, no. 20.4. She announces the pending royal visit to Dinteville’s property. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 20.3 (S: 20.3) – [1521, c. 20 July – Me] – Anne de Montmorency to Marguerite – Lost letter. Saulnier 1977. Allusion in Marguerite’s letter to Montmorency, no. 20.4. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 20.4 (J: 43; S: 20.4) – [1521, c. 25 July – Dijon] – Marguerite to Anne de Montmorency – BnF F.fr. 3010, fol. 22. Génin 1, no. 12, 159. Saulnier 1977. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 22 (J: 22; S: 22) – [1521, end of July – Meaux?] – Guillaume Briçonnet to Marguerite – BnF F.fr. 11495, fols. 6v–8v. Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 6, 34–36. Saulnier 1977 dates this to “fin juillet.” New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 22.1 (J: 21; S: 22.1) – [1521?, 2 August] – Gaspard de Coligny to Marguerite – Lost letter. Saulnier 1977. Alluded to in a letter to Flormiond Robertet, BnF Clairambault 319, fol. 180. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 22.2 (S: 22.2) – [1521, August-September] – Marguerite to Guillaume Briçonnet – Supposed lost letter. Saulnier 1977. Saulnier supposes that Marguerite and Briçonnet must have exchanged at least one small note before her visit to Meaux in September. There is no textual support for his assertion. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 22.3 (S: 22.3) – [1521, mid-September] – Guillaume de Montmorency to Marguerite – Lost letter. Saulnier 1977. Allusion in no. 24, Marguerite to Guillaume de Montmorency. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 24 (J: 24; S: 24) – [1521, c. 25 September – near Meaux] – Marguerite to Guillaume de Montmorency – BnF F.fr. 3025, fol. 85. Génin 1, no. 1, 148. Saulnier 1977. Louise and Marguerite would like to see him at Meaux. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 24.1 (J: 23; S: 24.1) – [1521], 29 September – Meaux – Marguerite to Florimond Robertet – BnF F.fr. 2971, fol. 4. Summary in Génin 1, 428. Saulnier 1977. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: No. 27.3 (S: 27.3) – [1521, October? – Meaux?] – Denis Briçonnet to Marguerite – Lost letter. Saulnier 1977. Allusion in Marguerite to Briçonnet, no. 31. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 25 (J: 25; S: 25) – [1521, 13–20 October – Compiègne?] – Marguerite to Guillaume Briçonnet – BnF F.fr. 11495, fols. 8v–9r. Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 7, 37. Saulnier 1977. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 27.1 (J: 26 and 27; S: 27.1) – [1521, 23 and 24? October – Meaux] – Guillaume Briçonnet to Marguerite – BnF F.fr. 11495, fols. 9r–10r; 10r–19r. Briçonnet,

to the correspondence of marguerite of navarre

581

Correspondance 1, no. 8 and 9, 38–39, 40–48. Saulnier 1977: 27.1 regroups Jourda nos. 26 and 27 as one letter. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 27.2 (J: 29; S: 27.2) – [1521, 25–26 October – Escaudain] – Clément Marot to Marguerite – Marot, Épistres, ed. Mayer, 280. Saulnier 1977. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 27.4 (S: 27.4) – [1521, 2 November – Argentan] – Marguerite de Lorraine to Marguerite – Lost letter. Saulnier 1977. Allusion in Marguerite’s Prisons, indicating that Marguerite de Lorraine wrote to her “children” from her death bed, among whom Saulnier thinks Marguerite must count. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 28 (J: 28; S: 28) – [1521, c. 5 November – Compiègne] – Marguerite to Guillaume Briçonnet – BnF F.fr. 11495, fols. 19r–v. Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 10, 49. Saulnier 1977 dates this letter to c. 5 November instead of “after 24 October” as per Jourda and Martineau. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 32 (J: 32; S: 32) – [1521, 10? November – near Compiègne] – Marguerite to Guillaume Briçonnet – BnF F.fr. 11495, fols. 40v–41 r. Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 13, 64. Saulnier 1977, for new order and date. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 32.1 (J: 31; S: 32.1) – [1521, 10? November – near Compiègne] – Marguerite to Guillaume Briçonnet – BnF F.fr. 11495, fols. 40r–v. Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 12, 63. Saulnier 1977, for new order. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 32.2 (J: 30; S: 32.2) – [1521], 11 November – Meaux – Guillaume Briçonnet to Marguerite – BnF F.fr. 11495, fols. 19v–33v. Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 11, 50–62. Saulnier 1977, for new order. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 33 (J: 33; S: 33) – [1521], 17 November – Meaux – Guillaume Briçonnet to Marguerite – BnF F.fr. 11495, fols. 33v–40r. Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 14, 65–70. Saulnier 1977, for new order and date. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 34 (J: 34; S: 34) – [1521, 19–20 November – Compiègne] – Marguerite to Guillaume Briçonnet – BnF F.fr. 11495, fols. 44r–45 r. Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 15, 70–71. Saulnier 1977, for new order and date. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 35 (J: 35; S: 35) – [1521, 20–21 November – Compiègne] – Marguerite to Guillaume Briçonnet – BnF F.fr. 11495, fol. 45r–v. Partial letter. Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 15A and 15B, 71–72. Saulnier 1977, for new order and date: “Je pense en effet que le texte qui commence ‘Je ne sçay . . .,’ (Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 15A, 71) n’est pas un P.S. au no. 34, mais un morceau de 35 [thought to be lost] qu’on aurait seul retenu.” New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: No. 36.1 (J: 36 and 37; S: 36.1) – [1521, 22 November] – Meaux – Guillaume Briçonnet to Marguerite – BnF F.fr. 11495, fols. 41r–44r [cited by Herminjard as BnF supplément français 337, fol. 41r–43v]. Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 16, 72. Saulnier 1977, for new order and date. Herminjard realized his mistake in attributing this letter to Gérard Roussel instead of Guillaume

582

appendix a – additions and corrections

Briçonnet, see Herminjard 1, no. 44, 79–81, and 475. Combine nos. 36 and 37 as 36.1. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 38 (J: 38; S: 38) – [1521, c. 10 December – Compiègne or Paris] – Marguerite to Guillaume Briçonnet – BnF F.fr. 11495, fols. 45v–46v. Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 17, 75–76. Saulnier 1977, for new order and date. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 39 (J: 39; S: 39) – [1521, c 15 December – Meaux] – Guillaume Briçonnet to Marguerite – BnF F.fr. 11495, fols. 46v–60v. Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 18, 76–86. Saulnier 1977, for date. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 40 (J: 40; S: 40) – [1521, c. 18 December – Meaux] – Guillaume Briçonnet to Marguerite – BnF F.fr. 11495, fols. 60v–76v. Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 19, 86–96. Saulnier 1977, for date. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 41 (J: 41; S: 41) – [1521], 22 December – Meaux – Guillaume Briçonnet to Marguerite – BnF F.fr. 11495, fols. 76v–99r. Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 20, 97–113. Saulnier 1977. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 42 (J: 42; S: 42) – [1521], 31 December – Meaux “en votre hermitaige” – Guillaume Briçonnet to Marguerite – BnF F.fr. 11495, fols. 99r–117v. Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 21, 114–128. Saulnier 1977. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 47 (J: 47; S: 47) – [1522, c. 15 January – Saint-Germain-en-Laye] – Marguerite to Guillaume Briçonnet – BnF F.fr. 11495, fol. 118r. Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 22, 132. Saulnier 1977, for date. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 48 (J: 48; S: 48) – [1522], 17 January – [Meaux] – Guillaume Briçonnet to Marguerite – BnF F.fr. 11495, fols. 118r–199r. Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 23, 132–133. Saulnier 1977. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 49 (J: 49; S: 49) – [1522, 18/19 January – Saint-Germain-en-Laye] – Marguerite to Guillaume Briçonnet – BnF F.fr. 11495, fols. 119r–120r. Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 24, 133–134. Saulnier 1977, for date. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 50 (J: 50; S: 50) – [1522], 20 January – [Meaux] – Guillaume Briçonnet to Marguerite – BnF F.fr. 11495, fols. 120r–121r. Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 25, 134–135. Saulnier 1977, for date. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 51 (J: 51; S: 51) – [1522, 21–29 January – Saint-Germain-en-Laye] – Marguerite to Guillaume Briçonnet – BnF F.fr. 11495, fol. 121r–v. Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 25, 136. Saulnier 1977, for date. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 52 (J: 52; S: 52) – [1522], 30 January – [Meaux] – Guillaume Briçonnet to Marguerite – BnF F.fr. 11495, fols. 121v–123r. Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 27, 136–137. Saulnier 1977. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes.

to the correspondence of marguerite of navarre

583

54 (J: 54; S: 54) – [1522, c. 5 February – Saint-Germain-en-Laye] – Marguerite to Guillaume Briçonnet – BnF F.fr. 11495, fol. 146r. Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 29, 154. Saulnier 1977. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 54.1 (J: 53; S: 54.1) – [1522], 5 February – Meaux “de vostre hermitaige” – Guillaume Briçonnet to Marguerite – BnF F.fr. 11495, fols. 123r–145v. Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 28, 138–153. Saulnier 1977. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 55 (J: 55; S: 55) – [1522], 6 February – Meaux “en vostre hermitaige” – Guillaume Briçonnet to Marguerite – BnF F.fr. 11495, fols. 146v–155r. Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 30, 154–160. Saulnier 1977. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 55.1 (S: 55.1) – [1522, after 6 February] – Saint-Germain-en-Laye – Marguerite to Philiberte de Savoie – Lost letter. Saulnier 1977. Mentioned in 54.1, Briçonnet invites Marguerite to share his letter with Philiberte de Savoie. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 56 (J: 56; S: 56) – [1522, 15? February – Saint-Germain-en-Laye] – Marguerite to Guillaume Briçonnet – BnF F.fr. 11495, fol. 155r–v. Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 31, 160. Saulnier 1977, for date. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 57 (J: 57; S: 57) – [1522], 17 February – Meaux “de vostre hermitaige” – Guillaume Briçonnet to Marguerite – BnF F.fr. 11495, fols. 155v–159r. Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 32, 161–163. Saulnier 1977. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 57.1 (S: 57.1) – [1522, after 17 February] – Saint-Germain-en-Laye – Marguerite to Philiberte de Savoie – Supposed lost letter. Saulnier 1977. In no. 57, Briçonnet asks to be remembered in Marguerite’s and her aunt’s prayers. A request for Marguerite to write to her aunt. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 58 (J: 58; S: 58) – [1522, 18–25 February – Saint-Germain-en-Laye] – Marguerite to Guillaume Briçonnet – BnF F.fr. 11495, fols. 159r–160r. Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 33, 164. Saulnier 1977. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 59 (J: 59; S: 59) – [1522], 26 February – Meaux “de vostre hermitaige” – Guillaume Briçonnet to Marguerite – BnF F.fr. 11495, fols. 160v–177r. Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 34, 165–176. Saulnier 1977. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 60 (J: 60; S: 60) – [1522, c. 1 March – Saint-Germain-en-Laye] – Marguerite to Guillaume Briçonnet – BnF F.fr. 11495, fols. 177r–178r. Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 35, 177–178. Saulnier 1977 for date. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 61 (J: 61; S: 61) – [1522], 6 March – [Meaux or Paris] – Guillaume Briçonnet to Marguerite – BnF F.fr. 11495, fols. 178r–196r. Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 36, 178–193. Saulnier 1977. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 62 (J: 62; S: 62) – [1522, c. 10 May? – Lyon?] – Marguerite to Guillaume Briçonnet – BnF F.fr. 11495, fol. 196r–v. Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no.

584

appendix a – additions and corrections

37, 193–194. Saulnier 1977, for date instead of Jourda’s estimate, “après Pâques, 20 avril 1522.” New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 63 (J: 63; S: 63) – [1522], 18 May – Meaux – Guillaume Briçonnet to Marguerite – BnF F.fr. 11495, fols. 196v–211r. Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 38, 195–214. Saulnier 1977, for date. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 63.1 (S: 63.1) – [1522, after 18 May – Lyon?] – Marguerite to Philiberte de Savoie – Supposed lost letter. Saulnier 1977. In no. 63 Briçonnet’s asks to be remembered in Marguerite’s and her aunt’s prayers. A request for Marguerite to write to her aunt. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 64 (J: 64; S: 64) – [1522, end of May? – Lyon?] – Marguerite to Guillaume Briçonnet – BnF F.fr. 11495, fol. 211v. Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 39, 214. Saulnier 1977, for date. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 65 (J: 65; S: 65) – [1522, May–June] – Adrian VI to Marguerite – Lost letter. Saulnier 1977. Allusion in her response, no. 66. Dates from the beginning of June or end of May. Adrian VI asks her to help establish peace between Francis and Charles V. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 66 (J: 66; S: 66) – [1522, 23 June – Lyon?] – Marguerite to Adrian VI – Ruscelli, Lettere di principi 1, fol. 102v. Saulnier 1977. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 68.1 (J: 44; S: 68.1) – [1522, c. 5 August] – Guillaume de Bonnivet to Marguerite – Lost letter. Mentioned in 68.2. Saulnier 1977. Allusion in no. 68.2 (Jourda no. 45). Bonnivet [Gouffier], the admiral of France. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 68.2 (J: 45; S: 68.2) – [1522, c. 8–10 August – Blois] – Marguerite to Guillaume de Montmorency – BnF F.fr. 3025, fol. 121. Génin 1, no. 13, 160; 414 (summary). Saulnier 1977. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 68.3 (J: 46; S: 68.3) – [1522, c. 8–10 August – Blois?] – Marguerite to Georges de La Trémoïlle (Jonvelle) – Lost letter. Mentioned in no. 68.2 (Jourda no. 45). Saulnier 1977. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 68.4 (S: 68.4) – [1522, September?] – Georges de La Trémoïlle (Jonvelle) to Marguerite – Mentioned in no. 81.1 (Jourda no. 80). Saulnier 1977. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 69 (J: 69; S: 69) – [1522, c. 5 September – Paris or Saint-Germain-en-Laye] – Marguerite to Guillaume Briçonnet – BnF F.fr. 11495, fol. 212r. Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 40, 215. Saulnier 1977, for date. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 70 (J: 70; S: 70) – [1522, c. 10 September – Meaux?] – Guillaume Briçonnet to Marguerite – Lost letter. Mentioned in no. 71, Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 41, 216. Saulnier 1977, for date. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No.

to the correspondence of marguerite of navarre

585

71 (J: 71; S: 71) – [1522, c. 15 September – Saint-Germain-en-Laye] – Marguerite to Guillaume Briçonnet – BnF F.fr. 11495, fol. 212r. Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 41, 216. Saulnier 1977, for date. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 72 (J: 72; S: 72) – [1522], 18 September – [Meaux] – Guillaume Briçonnet to Marguerite – BnF F.fr. 11495, fols. 212r–213r. Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 42, 217–218. Saulnier 1977, for date. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 10007 – [1522?], 22 September – Fontainebleau – Marguerite to the Cathedral Chapter of Bourges – AD Cher 8 G 434, no. 45. Date: 22 September or later during one of the stages of Fontainebleau’s building? Partial transcription in Françoise Michaud-Fréjaville, “Marguerite d’Angoulême, reine de Navarre, duchesse de Berry, ‘laquelle a fort humainement traité ses sujets de Berry,’” in Marguerite de Navarre, 1492–1992: Actes du colloque international de Pau, 1992, ed. Nicole Cazauran and James Dauphiné (Mont-de-Marsan: Éditions InterUniversitaires, 1995), 56 n. 36: “Nous avons esté advertie de la mort et trepas du feu doyen de votre église, et pour ce que nous désirons que notre cher et bien amé Me Robert de Cambray, l’un de vous, en soit pourveu en faveur de plusieurs bons, grans et recommandables services qu’il et ses freres ont faicts et fonts chascun jours, tant à Monseigneur le roy que à nous [. . .] vous en avons priée bien affectueusement le vouloir eslire . . .” Fontainebleau, 22 September [1522]. An eighteenth-century archivist wrongly attributed the letter to “la reine Margot.” New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 73 (J: 73; S: 73) – [1522, c. 25 September – Chantilly?] – Anne de Montmorency to Marguerite – Lost letter. Saulnier 1977. Mentioned in no. 74. Date: 25 September or the day after, since no. 74 responds to it quickly on 28 September. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 74 (J: 74; S: 74) – [1522], 28 September – Saint-Germain-en-Laye – Marguerite to Anne de Montmorency – BnF F.fr. 2989, fol. 53. Génin 1, no. 9, 156. Saulnier 1977. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 75 (J: 75; S: 75) – [1522, last days of September – near Corbie] – Anne de Montmorency to Marguerite – Lost letter. Saulnier 1977. In no. 78.1 (Jourda 77), Marguerite alludes to Montmorency’s letter to which she is responding. Date: after the 22 September. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 75.1 (J: 75; S: 75.1) – [1522, beginning of October – Corbie] – Anne de Montmorency to Marguerite – Lost letter. Saulnier 1977. In letter no. 77, Marguerite alludes to a second letter in which Montmorency complains that she had not responded to his last letter. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 75.2 (J: 79; S: 75.2) – [1522, c. 5 October] – Marguerite to Anne de Montmorency – Lost letter. Mentioned in 77. Saulnier 1977. Alluded to in no. 77. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 10008 – 1522, [before 10 October] – Marguerite to the Cathedral Chapter of Bourges – Reference in the deliberations of the Cathedral Chapter of

586

appendix a – additions and corrections

Bourges, 10 October 1522, AD Cher 8 G 161, fols. 265v and 268v, cf. 271r. Master Jean Vesse transmitted Marguerite’s request to the cathedral chapter and was assuredly supported with at least a letter of credence. The letter or message probably came after her letter of 22 September to the chapter and certainly before the chapter’s response on 10 October. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 75.3 (S: 75.3) – [1522, c. 10 October – Corbie] – Anne de Montmorency to Marguerite – Lost letter. Saulnier 1977. In 81.1 (Jourda no. 80), Marguerite mentions this letter, which was written to her and her mother. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 78.1 (J: 77; S: 78.1) – [1522], 11 October – Saint-Germain-en-Laye – Marguerite to Anne de Montmorency – BnF F.fr. 3026, fol. 30. Génin 1, no. 10, 157. Saulnier 1977. Montmorency mentions having received two letters from Marguerite, thus the new entry here for the second letter. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 78.2 (J: 78; S: 78.2) – [1522, c. 12? October – Saint-Germain-en-Laye?] – Marguerite to Guillaume Briçonnet – BnF F.fr. 11495, fol. 218r. Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 43, 218. Saulnier 1977, for date and order of numbers 78, 81, 82, 83, and 85. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 81 (J: 81; S: 81) – [1522], 20 October – Meaux – Guillaume Briçonnet to Marguerite – BnF F.fr. 11495, fols. 218r–220r. Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 44, 219–222. Saulnier 1977, for order. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 81.1 (J: 80; S: 81.1) – [1522, 22? October – Saint-Germain-en-Laye] – Marguerite to Anne de Montmorency – BnF F.fr. 3638, fol. 29. Génin 1, no. 15, 162. Saulnier 1977. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 82 (J: 82; S: 82) – [1522, November – Saint-Germain-en-Laye] – Marguerite to Guillaume Briçonnet – BnF F.fr. 11495, fol. 213r. Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 45, 222. Saulnier 1977. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 83 (J: 83; S: 83) – [1522, November – Meaux] – Guillaume Briçonnet to Marguerite – BnF F.fr. 11495, fols. 213v–217r. Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 46, 223–228. Saulnier 1977. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 84 (J: 84; S: 84) – [1522, mid-November? – Saint-Germain-en-Laye] – Marguerite to Guillaume Briçonnet – Lost letter. Mentioned in Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 46A, 228. Saulnier 1977. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 85 (J: 76 and 85; S: 85) – [1522, end of November? – Meaux] – Guillaume Briçonnet to Marguerite – BnF F.fr. 11495, fols. 217v–218r. Briçonnet, Correspondance 1, no. 47, 229–230. Saulnier 1977 argues that nos. 76 and 85 are the same, thus cancel no. 76. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 86 (J: 86; S: 86) – [1522, 21 December – Lyon] – Luigi Alamanni to Marguerite – Lost letter. Saulnier 1977. Second author: Zanobi Buondelmonti. They

to the correspondence of marguerite of navarre

587

mention this letter in another they wrote to Battista della Palla and Giuliano Buonaccorsi. See Saulnier for incomplete reference to “Giornale storico degli archivi toscani, III, 146; Hauvette, Alamanni, 485.” New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 10009 – [1523–1527] – Antoine d’Oraison to Marguerite – BM Carpentras MS 117. Mention in Robert Marichal, “Antoine d’Oraison, premier traducteur français de Luther,” BHR 9 (1947), 78–108; 87–88. Oraison’s dedication to Marguerite of his translation of Martin Luther’s sermon on preparation for death (1523). He addresses Marguerite as duchess of Alençon and Berry, not queen of Navarre, thus dating the work to before 1527. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 87 (J: 87; S: 87) – [1523, before 16 January] – Marguerite to Guillaume Briçonnet – BnF F.fr. 11495, fol. 220v. Briçonnet, Correspondance 2, no. 48, 10–11. Saulnier 1977, 225. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 88 (J: 88; S: 88) – [1523], 16 January – Meaux “de vostre hermitaige” – Guillaume Briçonnet to Marguerite – BnF F.fr. 11495, fols. 221r–223r. Briçonnet, Correspondance 2, no. 49, 11–15. Saulnier 1977, 225. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 100 (J: 100; S: 100) – [1523], 28 February – Saint-Germain-en-Laye – Marguerite to Anne de Montmorency – BnF F.fr. 2989, fol. 57. Génin 1, no. 11, 158. See further, Saulnier 1977, no. 74. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 101 (J: 101) – [1523, March] – Marguerite to Charles d’Alençon – Lost letter. Allusion in no. 102, Marguerite to Montmorency. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 107 (J: 107) – [1523, c. 7 June] – Guillaume Briçonnet to Marguerite – BnF F.fr. 11495, fols. 236v. Briçonnet, Correspondance 2, no. 57, 38–39. Precision on the date: this letter, which is the first in a series of letters in the manuscript dating to June 1523, is obviously an immediate response to the beginning of the Faculty of Theology’s heresy investigations against Berquin and the Meaux group, which started on 6 June, and thus the letter dates to immediately thereafter. Saulnier 1977, no. 74 for Artus Fillon, bishop of Senlis. 98 and 981bis (J: 98 and 98bis) – [1523, 7–19 June] – Marguerite to Guillaume Briçonnet – Lost letters. Mentioned in response by Briçonnet in letter no. 106 (Briçonnet, Correspondance 2, no. 56, 35–38), which has been reordered and dated to [17–19 June 1523]. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 10010 – [1523, c. 10–16 June] – Marguerite to Guillaume Briçonnet – Lost letter. Allusion in Jourda no. 110, Briçonnet, Correspondance 2, no. 58, 39–43, mentioned 40–41. This letter is not accounted for by Becker, Jourda, or, following them, Martineau and Veissière, though clearly alluded to in the text. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 110 (J: 110) – [1523, c. 16/17 June – Paris] – Guillaume Briçonnet to Marguerite – BnF F.fr. 11495, fols. 236v–239r. Briçonnet, Correspondance 2, no. 58, 39–43. Martineau and Veissière claim the letter was “after 18 June.” I place it

588

appendix a – additions and corrections

16/17 June, after Artus Fillon, who is mentioned in the letter, had attended the Faculty of Theology’s meeting on 16 June and likely warned Briçonnet but before the court responded to its investigations via Duprat, Fillon, and Briçonnet on 18 and 19 June. The faculty’s investigations would seem to have been the subject of Briçonnet’s letters to the protonotaire [Bourdailles, a member of Marguerite’s household, cf. Briçonnet, Correspondance 2, no. 57], which he mentions to Marguerite: “La lumiere je quiers et serche, pour tenebres chasser, que vous supplie très-humblement, Madame, comme indigne ministre, voulloir procurer vers Madame, à la fin que j’escriptz plus amplement à Monsieur le prothonotaire, qu’il vous plaira ouÿr.” Briçonnet, Correspondance 2, no. 58, 40. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 106 (J: 106; S: 106) – [1523, 17–19 June] – Guillaume Briçonnet to Marguerite – BnF F.fr. 11495, fols. 239v–241r. Briçonnet, Correspondance 2, no. 56, 35–38. Saulnier 1977, see notes to no. 74 on Fillon’s election. The letter is transcribed between other letters from June (nos. 110 and 111), which responded to each other and are full of allusions to the Faculty of Theology’s investigation of Berquin, Lefèvre, et al. This letter does not contain allusions to these events. Its emphasis on the theme of Christ’s body (the church) and ascension might indicate composition close to Ascension (14 May), but certainly not in Lent as per Jourda and the editors of Briçonnet, Correspondance. The idea of the church as Christ’s body, however, also rejoins Marguerite’s letter of c. 19–23 June, no. 111 (Briçonnet, Correspondance 2, no. 59, 34–44) on Peter’s full net as a metaphor for gathering the church. The key determinant for the date is the mention of Artus Fillon at the end of this letter. Briçonnet was working with Fillon in Paris to manage the court’s response to the Faculty of Theology c. 16–19 June, thus establishing the probable date for this letter, a date which also fits with its order with respect to the dated letters the manuscript. This means that the two lost letters mentioned in it (Jourda nos. 98 and 98bis) date to the period between Briçonnet’s first alarmed message of c. 7 June, letter no. 107, and this letter. See Saulnier 1977, no. 74 for Artus Fillon, bishop of Senlis. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 118 (J: 118) – [1523, c. 24 July] – Guillaume Briçonnet to Marguerite – BnF F.fr. 11495, fols. 247r–251r. Briçonnet, Correspondance 2, no. 64, 53–59. Becker, Martineau, and Veissière date this letter to after 21 July. Date: as reported in Marguerite’s letter to her aunt Philiberte, no. 105, now re-dated to the end of July, Francis left Paris on 24 July and Briçonnet accompanied him. Before leaving, the bishop sent to her copies of Lefèvre’s translation of the Gospels. Cf. Letter 105. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 105 (J: 105) – [1523, end of July] – Marguerite to Philiberte de Savoie – Collection Benjamin Fillon. In Marguerite of Navarre, Heptaméron des nouvelles de très illustre Princesse Marguerite d’Angoulême, Reine de Navarre, ed. A. Le Roux de Lincy and Anatole de Montaiglon, 4 vols. (Paris: Eudes, 1880), vol. 4, 185–187; 187, transcription with facsimile of the letter. Marguerite sends a copy of Lefèvre’s translation of the Gospels to “madame de

to the correspondence of marguerite of navarre

589

Nemours” [Philiberte de Savoie]. Date: Lefèvre’s translation was published on 8 June 1523. Marguerite mentions that Guillaume Briçonnet sent copies to her just before he left to follow the king, who was heading south from Paris. Francis I left Paris on 24 July 1523, thus the new date. See Knecht, Renaissance Warrior, 201. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 118.1 (J: 369; S: 118.1) – [1523, beginning of August] – Anne de Montmorency to Marguerite – Lost letter. Saulnier 1977. Letter inferred from 118.2 (Jourda no. 370). Date: the first days of August. The same letter is also mentioned by Saulnier 1977, no. 75A “sous un numéro fantôme” for purpose of discussing the dates of 118.1 and 118.2. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 118.2 (J: 370; S: 118.2) – [1523, c. 7 August – between Fontainebleau and Gien] – Marguerite to Anne de Montmorency – BnF F.fr. 3024, fol. 165. Génin 1, no. 163, 400. Saulnier 1977. Saulnier argues that Marguerite’s encouragement came during Montmorency’s mission to Switzerland in 1523. The same letter is also mentioned by Saulnier 1977, no. 75B “sous un numéro fantôme” for purpose of discussing the dates of 118.1 and 118.2. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 138 (J: 138) – [1524] – Marguerite to Anne de Montmorency – BnF F.fr. 3024, fol. 165. Jourda, “Marguerite de Navarre, lettres inédits,” no. 3, 105–106. Jourda, Répertoire, 31–32. Date: Jourda believes this letter was written in 1524, although the letter contains no datable information besides Montmorency’s title. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 10011 (J: 139) – [1524], 10 January – [Meaux] – Guillaume Briçonnet to Marguerite – BnF F.fr. 11495, fols. 271r–v. Briçonnet, Correspondance 2, no. 76, 88–92 and no. 77, 92–93. Jourda counted these two as one letter, no. 139. Martineau and Veissière see two letters, thus the new number of the second letter, their no. 77. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 141 (J: 141 and 89) – [1524], 29 January – Blois – Marguerite to the Cathedral Chapter of Bourges – AD Cher 8 G 434, no. 43. Reproduced in Michel Veissière, “La chrétienne Marguerite d’Angoulême d’après sa correspondance avec l’évêque Guillaume Briçonnet (1521–1524),” Cahiers d’archéologie et d’histoire du Berry 96 (1989), 14; also in La Ferrière-Percy, Livre de dépenses, 159–160 and Raynal 3, 302. Jourda counts this letter twice, the first time falsely at no. 89. Marguerite announces the coming visit of “maitre Michel.” This was Michel d’Arande, not Jean Michel as stated by Raynal and Jourda. See Briçonnet, Correspondance 2, 127, for Briçonnet’s advice about handling d’Arande’s preaching at Bourges. This is at least the fourth letter Marguerite had written to the Cathedral Chapter of Bourges on this matter since by 25 January 1524 they had already received three letters from her pressing them to accept her almoner as preacher for Lent: “. . . pro quo dicta domina trina vice rescripsit.” 25 January 1524 n.s., AD Cher 8 G 161, 327v. Thus cancel letter 89. Add another place-holder for these three lost letters? New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes.

590

appendix a – additions and corrections

147 (J: 95 and 147) – [1524], 11 February – Marguerite to the Cathedral Chapter of Bourges – Raynal 3, 302. Summarized by Brimont, 133. Jourda counts this letter twice, the first time falsely at no. 95. She thanks the cathedral canons for their reception of her “aulmoner,” who had recently preached before the king and Louise of Savoy Queen Mother. Marguerite expresses her shock at the opposition raised by the archbishop of Bourges and orders that “maistre Michel” should recommence his instruction at Bourges. This was Michel d’Arande, not Jean Michel as stated by Raynal and Jourda. See Briçonnet, Correspondance 2, 127, for Briçonnet’s advice about handling d’Arande’s preaching at Bourges. Cancel no. 95. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 10012 – 1524, 11 February – Marguerite to the Bourges City Council – AM Bourges, BB 31, 1. Companion missive to no. 147. Summarized in register of town council deliberations, AM Bourges, BB 31, 1: “Lettre de Margueritte duchesse de Berry qui exhorte les Maire et Echevins d’assister à la lecture et predication de l’Evangile.” New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 159 (J: 159) – [1524], 25 February – Basel – Claude Chansonnette to Marguerite – Droz, Chemins 1, 10–12. Herminjard 5, no. 96a, 377. Dedicatory letter preceding La Maniere de se confesser [Basel: Cratander, before Easter 1524] translated by Chansonnette from Erasmus of Rotterdam’s Latin edition (Basel: Froben, 1524). New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 10013 – [1524, c. 24 March] – Marguerite to the chapter of Saint-Victor, Paris – Mentioned in BnF F.fr. 25229. Also mentioned in Driart, 90. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 169 (J: 169) – [1524], 6 May – [Blois?] – Marguerite to Guillaume Briçonnet – BnF F.fr. 11495, fol. 311r. Briçonnet, Correspondance 2, no. 102, 161. Date in MS appears before letter no. 167, but, according to Becker, applies to this no. 169. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 10014 – 1524, 31 May – Blois – Marguerite to the Parlement of Paris – AN X1A 9322, no. 208. Reference in Clémencet, Parlement, no. 1110. “Lettre de Marguerite d’Angoulême recommandant au Parlement le procès soutenu par le seigneur de Lorges à cause de baillage d’Orléans.” New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: No. 186 (J: 186) – [1524, August] – Marguerite to Anne de Montmorency – BnF F.fr. 3024, fol. 129. Summary in Génin 1, 419. Date: probably in August due to the mention of Princess Charlotte’s illness: “Your little mistress is not healed, but it is better that the king think that she is.” New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: No. 10015 – 1524, 9 August – Blois – Marguerite to the Parlement of Paris – AN X1A 9322, no. 212. Reference in Clémencet, Parlement, no. 1114. Accompanied Clémencet, Parlement, no. 1113, 9 August 1524, Blois: “Lettre de Louise de Savoie invitant le Parlement à vider au plus tôt le procès du seigneur de

to the correspondence of marguerite of navarre

591

Lorge au bailliage d’Orléans, ledit seigneur devant partir avec le roi pour défendre la Provence.” AN X1A 9322, no. 211. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: No. 10016 – 1524, 25 August – Marguerite to the Bourges City Council – AM Bourges, BB 31, p. 2, “Présentation à la ville d’une lettre de Mad. la duchesse de Berry du 25 aout pour payer 6000 l.t. au Maistre de l’hostel dieu; délibération sur cette lettre et autres objets.” Presented 26 September 1524. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 204.1 (S: 204.1) – [1525, 24–25 February – Pavia] – Francis I to Marguerite – Champollion-Figeac, Captivité, 129. Saulnier 1973. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: No. 212 (J: 212; S: 212) – [1525, March – Pizzighettone] – Francis I to Marguerite – Supposed allusion in no. 206.1 (Jourda no. 213). Saulnier 1973 says the allusion is false, cancel no. 212. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 205 (J: 205; S: 205) – [1525, c. 1 March – Saint-Just near Lyon] – Marguerite to Francis I – BnF F.fr. 6623, fol. 39. Champollion-Figeac, Captivité, no. 46, 134; idem, Poesies, 229. Saulnier 1973. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 206 (J: 206; S: 206) – [1525, beginning of March – Saint-Just near Lyon] – Marguerite d’Alençon and Louise of Savoy to Francis I – BnF F.fr. 6623, fol. 38. Champollion-Figeac, Captivité, no. 53, 142; idem, Poesies, 230. Saulnier 1973. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 206.1 (J: 213; S: 206.1) – [1525, c. 10 March – Lyon] – Marguerite to Francis I – BnF F.fr. 6624, fol. 119. Génin 2, no. 2, 27. Saulnier 1973. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 215 (J: 215; S: 215) – [1525], 4 April – Pizzighettone – Anne de Montmorency to Marguerite – BnF F.fr. 3087, fol. 33. Champollion-Figeac, Captivité, 165. Saulnier 1973. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 214 (J: 214; S: 214) – [1525, 6–10 April – Saint-Just near Lyon] – Marguerite to Francis I – BnF F.fr. 6624, fol. 41. Génin 2, no. 3, 29. Saulnier 1973. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 216 (J: 216; S: 216) – [1525, c. 15 April] – Francis I to Marguerite – Lost letter. Mentioned in response, no. 218. Génin 2, no. 4, 30. Saulnier 1973. Date: between the duke of Alençon’s death, 11 April, and Marguerite’s response to Francis, 20 April. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 217 (J: 217; S: 217) – [1525, c. 15 April] – Francis I to Marguerite – Lost letter. Mentioned in no. 218. Génin 2, no. 4, 30. Saulnier 1973. Date: between the duke of Alençon’s death, 11 April, and Marguerite’s response to Francis, 20 April. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 10017 – [1525, May] – Marguerite to Francis I – BnF F.fr. 2936, fol 34r–v, copy, BnF Clairambault 324, fol. 219. Génin 1, no. 27, 178–179; re-dated

592

appendix a – additions and corrections

Génin 2, no. 6, 34. This may not be a new letter, but Jourda does not seem to have listed it. Génin 2, no. 6, 34 quotes the incipit and directs the reader: “Voyez Rec. imp., t. I, lettre 27, 178 [= Génin 1, no. 27, 178–179].” New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 218 (J: 218; S: 218) – [1525, mid-May? – Lyon] – Marguerite to Francis I – BnF F.fr. 6624, fol. 152. Génin 2, no. 4, 30. Saulnier 1973 for notes and re-dating. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 219 (J: 219; S: 219) – [1525, c. 20–25 May? – Lyon] – Marguerite to Francis I – BnF F.fr. 6624, fol. 155. Génin 2, no. 5, 32. Saulnier 1973 for notes and re-dating. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 220 (J: 220) – [1525], 5 June – [Lyon] – Marguerite to Margaret of Austria – Lost letter. Mentioned in Letters and Papers 4, pt. 1, no. 1413, 629–630. The letter was carried by Perrot and Warty and delivered on June 13. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 220.1 (J: 230; S: 220.1) – [1525, c. 15 June – Lyon] – Marguerite to Francis I – BnF F.fr. 6624, fol. 176. Génin 2, no. 9, 37. Saulnier 1973 for new date and order. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 10018 – [1525, before 24 June – Strasbourg] – Sigismund von Hohenlohe to Marguerite – Lost letter. Mentioned in response, letter no. 221, 24 June 1525, Marguerite to Sigismund: “Mais nous vous prions de tenir et croire que vostre lettre a esté très agréable.” Génin 1, 180, no. 28; Jourda, Répertoire, no. 221. Beware of Génin’s translations. Though he does not include no. 221, Herminjard’s translations of the other letters exchanged by Sigismund and Marguerite are superior. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 232 (J: 232; S: 232) – [1525, July?] – Marguerite to Jan Łaski (a Lasco, Lascaris) – Lost letter. Allusion in Erasmus’s letter to Marguerite, no. 255. Saulnier 1972. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 226.1 (J: 776; S: 226.1) – [1525], 8 July – Lyon – Marguerite to Jean Brinon – AN J 966, 33/6. Amada Lopez de Meneses, “Nuevos Datos,” 5–6. Génin 1, no. 148, 367. Saulnier 1971 and Saulnier 1973. In the latter entry, Saulnier argues this letter certainly dates from 1525, the period of Francis I’s captivity, rather than 1538, the period of negotiations with the emperor to which time Jourda had dated it as no. 776. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 227.1 (J: 231; S: 227.1) – [1525], 19 July – Venyzolo – Jean de La Barre to Marguerite – Champollion-Figeac, Captivité, 262. Saulnier 1973 for reordering. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 228 (J: 228; S: 228) – [1525, end of July – Lyon] – Marguerite to Francis I – BnF F.fr. 6624, fol. 149. Génin 2, no. 7, 34. Saulnier 1973. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 233 (J: 233; S: 233) – [1525, 16–31 July – Lyon] – Marguerite to André de Foix – BnF F.fr. 3087, fol. 12. Champollion-Figeac, Captivité, 304. Saulnier

to the correspondence of marguerite of navarre

593

1973. Marguerite to “M. d’Asparros” mentioned by Odet de Foix in his letter to Louise of Savoy. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 326 (J: 326) – [1525, August–November] – Sigismund von Hohenlohe to Marguerite – Lost letter. Mentioned in no. 340. Date: Marguerite received the first of two letters from Sigimund when in Spain between September and 15 December: “J’ai reçu en Espagne l’une de vos lettres, et l’autre quand je me suis de nouveau retrouvée auprès de ma mère [15 December at Roussillon].” Herminjard 1, no. 171, 420. Thus, allowing roughly a month for transit, his letter would have been written between August and November, perhaps written in response to her letter of 24 June [1525], no. 221. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 234.1 (J: 229; S: 234.1) – [1525, c. 10 August] – Marguerite to Francis I – BnF F.fr 6624, fol. 180. Génin 2, no. 8, 36. Saulnier 1973. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 235.1 (S: 235.1) – [1525, c. 20 August – Madrid] – François de Tournon and Anne de Montmorency to Marguerite – Lost letter. Mentioned in a letter of Tournon to Montmorency, from Madrid, 7 September 1525. See letter of that date in Correspondance du Cardinal François de Tournon, ed. François Michel. Saulnier 1971. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 239 (J: 239; S: 239) – [1525, c. 1 September? – Barcelona] – Marguerite to Francis I – BnF F.fr. 6624, fol. 11. Génin 2, no. 12, 40. Saulnier 1977. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 239.1 (J: 68 and 242; S: 239.1) – [1525, c. 2 September?] – Marguerite to Francis I – BnF F.fr. 6624, fol. 162. Génin 2, 42, no. 13. Saulnier 1977. Marguerite sent this letter with a note to Montmorency, no. 239.2 [Jourda no. 67]. Thus, Saulnier argues Jourda no. 68 should be cancelled since it stands in for the letter mentioned in the note, which he identifies with Jourda no. 242, now numbered by him as 239.1. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 239.2 (J: 67; S: 239.2) – [1525], 2 September – Marguerite to Anne de Montmorency – BnF N.a.fr. 1233, fol. 29–30 “et [N.a.fr?] no. 21687.” Saulnier 1977, for new date and context. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 243.1 (J: 1138; S: 243.1) – [1525, before 19 September] – Marguerite to Francis I – Location unknown. Facsimile in “Précieux documents historiques et littéraires,” Hôtel Drouot, 25 May 1973, no. 42, 33. Saulnier 1975 C quotes the letter in full and provides notes. Saulnier 1977, for revised date, just prior to her arrival in Madrid, 19 September. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 250.1 (J: 256; S: 250.1) – [1525, 23 September – Madrid] – Marguerite to Louise of Savoy – Lost letter. Mentioned in no. 264. Saulnier 1975 C. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 255 (J: 255; S: 255) – 1525, 28 September – Basel – Desiderius Erasmus to Marguerite – Allen 6, no. 1615, 174–176. Trans. Génin 1, no. 31, 184. Saulnier 1972. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes.

594

appendix a – additions and corrections

263 (J: 263) – [1525, c. 6 October] – Lyon – Louise of Savoy to Marguerite – Champollion-Figeac, Captivité, 329. For day of month, see letters by Odet de Foix and Robertet on 6 and 7 October, in ibid., nos. 264 and 265. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 265 (J: 265; S: 265) – [1525], 7 October – Lyon – Florimond Robertet to Marguerite – Champollion-Figeac, Captivité, 356–357. Saulnier 1977 no. 24.1 for Robertet. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 326.1 (J: 326bis) – [1525, 15 October–December – Strasbourg] – Sigismund von Hohenlohe to Marguerite – Mentioned in no. 340. Date: Received 15 December 1525 at Roussillon. Second of two letters from Sigismund von Hohenlohe. Marguerite told Sigismund: “J’ai reçu en Espagne l’une de vos lettres, et l’autre quand je me suis de nouveau retrouvée après de ma mère [15 December at Roussillon].” Herminjard 1, no. 171, 420. Sigismund’s second letter was probably written after the arrival of Lefèvre, Roussel, and d’Arande in Strasbourg in mid-October. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 276 (J:276) – [1525, 30 October – Madrid] – Marguerite to Louise of Savoy – Lost letter. Saulnier 1975 C, for date and notes. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 276.1 (S: 276.1) – [1525, mid-November – Madrid] – Marguerite to Louise of Savoy – Lost letter. Mentioned in no. 279. Saulnier 1975 C. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 276.2 (S: 276.2) – [1525, c. 25 November – Madrid?] – Marguerite to Louise of Savoy – Lost letter. Mentioned in Sanuto, Diari, 40, 506. Saulnier 1975 C. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 279 (J: 274 and 279; S: 279) – [1525, 27 November – Saint-Just near Lyon] – Louise of Savoy to Marguerite – Letters and Papers 4, pt. 1, no. 1797, 799. Jacqueton, La politique, 154. Saulnier 1975 C. Cancel 274, which is the same as this 279. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 298.1 (J: 298) – [1525], 1 December – Madrid – Anne de Montmorency to Marguerite – Lost letter. Mentioned in responses, nos. 305 and 308. Jourda notes two letters under no. 298, thus, for consistency, add entry no. 298.1 for the second. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 310.1 (J: 294; S: 310.1) – [1525, c. 5 December – Madrid] – Anne de Montmorency to Marguerite – Lost letter. Mentioned in no. 313.1. Saulnier 1975 C. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 313 (J: 313; S: 313) – [1525, c. 10 December – between Saragossa and Lerida] – Marguerite to Francis I – BnF F.fr. 6624, fol. 12. Génin 2, no. 25, 60. Saulnier 1975 C and Saulnier 1977, no. 24.1 for Robertet. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 313.1 (J: 302; S: 313.1) – [1525, c. 10 December – between Saragossa and Lerida] – Marguerite to Anne de Montmorency – BnF F.fr. 2982, fol. 83. Génin 1, no. 41, 201. Saulnier 1975 C and Saulnier 1977. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes.

to the correspondence of marguerite of navarre

595

321 (J: 321; S: 321) – [1525, 16–21 December] – Marguerite to Anne de Montmorency – BnF F.fr. 3024, fol. 69. Génin 1, no. 46, 206. Saulnier 1975 C, for notes and re-dating. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 318 (J: 318; S: 318) – [1525, 18? December – San Celoni] – Marguerite to Francis I – BnF F.fr 6624, fol. 144. Génin 2, no. 27, 65. Saulnier 1975 C. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 318.1 (S: 318.1) – [1525, 18–19 December – San Celoni] – Marguerite to Frederick of Portugal, bishop of Siguenza – Lost letter. Mentioned in a letter from Frederick of Portugal, bishop of Siguenza (1519–1532) and lieutenant general of Catalonia, to Charles V, from Barcelona, 22 December 1525, Academia de la Historia, Madrid, coll. Salazar, A 36, fol. 395. Saulnier 1975 C. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 10019 – [1526] – Henry Cornelius Agrippa of Nettesheim to Marguerite – Henry Agrippa von Nettesheim, Brefve declamation du sainct sacrement de mariage (Lyon: “Le Prince” [Claude Nourry], 1526). Only known copy: BnF Rés. D 65136. See Droz, Chemins 2, 1–27, text 10–26. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 10020 – 1526 – [Lyon] – Jean de Vauzelles to Marguerite – Vauzelles’s dedicatory letter to Marguerite in Hystoire evangelique de quatre evangelistes en ung fidelement abregee (Lyon: Gilbert de Villiers, 1526). See Higman, Piety, N 1 and notes in Baudrier, Bibliographie lyonnaise, vol. 12, “Villiers, Gilbert de,” no. 416. Picot, Les français italianisants 1, 119. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 10021 – [1526] – Jean Bouchet to Marguerite – Dedicatory epistle in Jean Bouchet, Sensuit le Labyrinht [sic] de fortune et Seiour des trois nobles dames (Paris: Philippe Le Noir, [c. 1526]), A3r–A4v. Date: after death of Admiral Gouffier in 1525, which is mentioned. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: No. 327 (J: 327; S: 327) – [1526, beginning of January – Montpellier] – Marguerite to Francis I – BnF F.fr. 6624, fol. 57. Génin 2, no. 36, 78. Saulnier 1977, no. 24.1 for the house of Alençon. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 333 (J: 333; S: 333) – [1526, before 28 January – Madrid] – Jean de La Barre to Marguerite – Lost letter. Mentioned in no. 334. Saulnier 1975 A. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 334 (J: 334; S: 334) – [1526], 1 February – Madrid – Jean de La Barre to Marguerite – BnF F.fr. 3087, fol. 9. Génin 1, 436–438; Champollion, Captivité, 487. Saulnier 1975 C. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 334.1 (J: 224; S: 334.1) – [1526, after 1 February – Madrid] – Jean de La Barre to Marguerite – BnF F.fr. 3087, fol. 13; Clairambault 324, fol. 199. Champollion-Figeac, Captivité, 252. Saulnier 1975 C. He sends to her letters from Charles V, which were carried by Philippe Chabot, sr. de Brion. Sent shortly after 1 February 1526. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes.

596

appendix a – additions and corrections

334.2 (J: 225; S: 334.2) – [1526, after 1 February] – Philippe Chabot, sr. de Brion to Marguerite – Lost letter. Mentioned in no. 334.1; ChampollionFigeac, Captivité, 252. Saulnier 1975 C. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 343 (J:343; S: 343) – [1526, March] – Marguerite to Charles V – Original in a private collection. Copy, Paris, Archives du Ministère des Affaires étrangères, Correspondance politique d’Espagne, vol. 4, fol. 320v. Bousse, “Une lettre inédite de Marguerite de Navarre à Charles-Quint,” no. 2, 173–177. Saulnier 1971. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 340 (J: 340) – [1526], 9 March – Marguerite to Sigismund von Hohenlohe – Herminjard 1, no. 171, 419–421; Génin 1, no. 48, 211. Original publication in Wibel, Merckwürdige Lebens-Geschichte, 62. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 350 (J: 350) – [1526], 11 May – [Cognac] – Marguerite to Sigismund von Hohenlohe – Herminjard 1, no. 175, 430; Génin 1, 212, no. 49. Original publication in Wibel, Merckwürdige Lebens-Geschichte, 64. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 356 (J: 356) – [1526, June] – Marguerite to Clement VII – Lost letter. Mentioned in no. 357. Jourda has placed this letter out of chronological order. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 354 (J: 354) – [1526], 5 July – Paris – Marguerite to Sigismund von Hohenlohe – Herminjard 1, no. 179, 441; Génin 1, no. 51, 214. Original publication in Wibel, Merckwürdige Lebens-Geschichte l, 64. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 357.1 (J: 374) – [1526, after 18 July] – Marguerite to Francis I – BnF F.fr. 6624, fol. 16. Génin 2, no. 37, 80. Jourda notes that this letter must be dated after 18 July 1526 when Francis confirmed Marguerite’s right to the usufruct of Alençon, yet he places it with a group of letter that he dates approximately from 6 August 1522 to 23 March 1526. In this letter, Marguerite thanks Francis for the confirmation of the gift of Alençon. She must have done so soon after the gift, thus the new number. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 366.1 (S: 366.1) – [1526, end of year] – Marguerite to Desiderius Erasmus – Lost letter. Mentioned in no. 376. Saulnier 1972. May only have been a verbal message. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 10022 – [1527–1539] – Marguerite to Anne de Montmorency – BnF F.fr. 3025, fol. 105. Date: 1527–1539 because of Montmorency’s title. The letter in this MS, which is not noted by Jourda, needs to be compared with her other letters to Montmorency of the same era. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: No. 10023 – 1527, [before 16 January] – Marguerite to the Faculty of Theology, Paris – Lost letter. Farge, Registre 1, 165, 188 B, mention. On 16 January 1527 Marguerite asked for a copy of the faculty’s conclusions on matters of faith “ab inicio Lutherane factionis.” New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No.

to the correspondence of marguerite of navarre

597

376 (J: 376; S: 376) – [1527], 13 August – Basel – Desiderius Erasmus to Marguerite – Allen 7, no. 1854. Trans. Génin 1, no. 60, 229. Saulnier 1972. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 378 (J: 378; S: 378) – [1527, after 5 October] – Jean de La Barre and Robertet to Marguerite – Lost letter. Mentioned in no. 379, a letter to the king. Saulnier 1977, no. 24.1, for Robertet. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 379 – (J: 379; S:379) – [1527, after 5 October] – Marguerite to Francis I – BnF F.fr. 6624, fol. 65. Génin 2, no. 44, 90. Saulnier 1977, no. 24.1, for Robertet. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 392 (J: 392) – [1528] – Marguerite to Francis I – BnF F.fr. 6624, fol. 147. Génin 2, no. 41, 85. Jourda places this letter in 1528 because, though he does not say so in his summary, Marguerite mentions that she is ill. In the next letter, no. 393, to Montmorency, she excuses herself for not moving while she ascertains if she is pregnant. During Louise’s life, Marguerite was only pregnant twice: in1528 and 1529–1530. But the dates of birth of her two children, Jeanne [16 November 1528] and Jean [15 July 1530], should enable us to date this letter to the beginning of one of the pregnancies: either early March 1528 or early December 1529. She also had a brief moment when she thought herself pregnant in 1530–1531. The “cueur mort” would seem to date the letter to a time when Marguerite was mourning the death of someone. She also relates that she was far from the king and that Louise had been ill but was recovering. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 393 (J: 393) – [1528] – Marguerite to Anne de Montmorency – BnF F.fr. 3025, fol. 65. Génin 1, no. 57, 225. The dating of this letter is tentative. See notes above to no. 392. It could be from early 1531 as well. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 10024 – 1528, [before 10 January] – Marguerite to Dominican provincial general – Archives municipales de Bayonne. Mentioned in Archives municipales de Bayonne, Registres gascons; vol 2, Bayonne, 1898, no. 266, 552 (page 831 in the MS original): “Mandement de François Ier enjoignant aux officiers royaux et tous autres d’aider le provincial des Frères Prêcheurs de Toulouse à la réforme des couvents de son ordre.” New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 412 (J: 412) – [1528, April–November] – Marguerite to Francis I – BnF F.fr. 6624, fol. 136. Génin 2, no. 47, 93. Date: if, as related in the letter, the baby was kicking, she must have been in at least the third month of pregnancy, thus the letter dates from April to November 1528. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 401 (J: 401; S: 401) – [1528], 11 April – Saint-Germain-en-Laye – Marguerite to Anne de Montmorency – BnF F.fr. 3025, fol. 97. BnF Clairambault 313, fol. 172 copy. Génin 1, no. 59, 228. Saulnier 1977, no. 27.4, for the house of Alençon. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 402 (J: 402; S: 402) – [1528, 11 April] – Saint-Germain-en-Laye – Marguerite to Francis I – BnF F.fr. 6624, fol. 67. Génin 2, 82, no. 39. Saulnier 1977, no. 27.4, for the house of Alençon. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes.

598

appendix a – additions and corrections

404 (J: 404) – [1528, April–May] – Guillaume Du Bellay to Marguerite – BnF F.fr. 5152, fol. 13–16. Jourda notes the MS as 5112 instead of 5152. Du Bellay requests her aid in order to be reimbursed for his service to the crown, despite resistance by Chancellor Duprat. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: No. 407 (J: 407) – [1528, May?] – Marguerite to Anne de Montmorency – BnF F.fr. 3024, fol. 125. Génin 1, 242, no. 71. The dating of this letter is tricky, possibly 1529. Marguerite petitions that “Langey,” Guillaume Du Bellay, be reimbursed for his diplomatic voyages. She mentions that she thinks that she is pregnant. She would only have been about two months pregnant with Jeanne (born in November) in May 1528, and therefore, she was likely exaggerating the progress of her pregnancy in her letter to Wolsey of the same month. In May 1529, she was seven months pregnant with Jean, who was born 15 July 1530. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 403 (J: 403; S: 403) – [1528], 13 May – Saint-Germain-en-Laye – Marguerite to the Gonfaloniere of Florence – Bulletin italien (1902), 217–218. Saulnier 1977, no. 86 for Della Palla. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 10025 – [1528, before 8 June – Strasbourg] – Sigismund von Hohenlohe to Marguerite of Navarre – Mentioned in Peter, “Strasbourg et la Réforme française vers 1525,” 269–283; 274 and 277. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 10026 – [1528], 8 June – Marguerite to Sigismund von Hohenlohe – Archives du Chapitre de Saint-Thomas de Strasbourg, no. 38, carton 20, 1, “Diarium Dr. Nicolai Gerbelii,” (49), fol. 73bis v. Mentioned in Peter, “Strasbourg et la Réforme française vers 1525,” 269–283; 274 and 277. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 10027 – 1528, [before 30 September] – Marguerite to the Faculty of Theology, Paris – Lost letter. Mentioned in Farge, Registre 1, 199–200, 243 A. She sends a message with the king’s letters “litteras regias” to the faculty, asking Caroli be reinstated. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 416 (J: 416) – [1528?, autumn – Blois?] – Marguerite to Anne de Montmorency – BnF F.fr. 3025, fol. 129. Génin 1, no. 58, 226. Date: Jourda gives no justification for dating this letter to her first pregnancy in 1528 as opposed to the second in 1530. The key indicators for the date are that: she has been pregnant for several months; she is taking rest; and Henri de Navarre is far from both Marguerite and court. She also recommends a former servant of her first husband, Charles d’Alençon. This marginally favors 1528, which is closer to the date of his death. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 420 (J: 420; S: 420) – [1528, c. beginning of October? – Fontainebleau] – Marguerite to Francis I – BnF F.fr. 6624, fol. 32. Génin 2, no. 53, 100. Saulnier 1972, for new date and notes. 10028 – [1528, 9 November] – Marguerite to Mortaigne-au-Perche Town Council [Mortaigne] – “Tabellion d’Alençon.” Mention in a notarial act

to the correspondence of marguerite of navarre

599

cited by Gérasime Despierres, Établissement d’imprimeries à Alençon de 1529 à 1575 (Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1894), 18 n. 1. In it Étienne Lecourt renounces the office of administrator of the Hôtel-Dieu of Mortaigne on 5 September 1530 in favor of “maitre Gervain Bazen prestre . . . moyennant et obéissant ledit Lecourt au vouloir et commandement de la dicte dame [the queen of Navarre, duchess of Alençon mentioned earlier] à luy faict et escript.” The office had been granted to him by the inhabitants of Montaigne at Marguerite’s request on 9 November 1528: “L’office d’administrateur de l’Hostel-Dieu de Mortaigne, et que par le vouloir et commendement de la Royne de Navarre, duchesse d’Alençon, luy avait esté octroyé et baillé par les habitants de Mortaigne, selon la teneur de l’instance des dits bourgeois du 9 novembre 1528.” Thus, in all likelihood, the inhabitants of Montaigne were citing a letter from Marguerite dated 9 November 1528 requesting the office for Lecourt. Lecourt was most definitely referring to a letter from Marguerite to him shortly before 5 September 1530 requiring him to give it up. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 429 (J: 429) – [1528], 9 December – London – Jean Du Bellay to Marguerite – Supposed mention in Bourrilly and de Vaissières, Ambassades de Jean Du Bellay, no. 171, 486. Cancel 429. There is no clear reference to a letter, only to a verbal communication to announce that the boats sent to Bordeaux to find wine for the king of England had returned and that Du Bellay had directed them to Marguerite’s friends. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 10029 – 1528, 12 December – Saint-Germain-en-Laye – Marguerite to the Parlement of Paris – AN X1A 9322, no. 98. Reference in Clémencet, Parlement, no. 1118 bis, accompanied by Clémencet, Parlement, no. 1117, 12 December 1528, Saint-Germain-en-Laye: “Lettre de François Ier enjoignant au Parlement de juger sans délai le procès pendant depuis 1496 et soutenu par l’évêque de Saint-Malo [Denis Briçonnet] grand archidiacre de Reims contre l’archevêque de Reims, à cause d’une pension qu’il réclame sur l’archevêché de Reims.” X1A 9322, no. 215. Cf. Clémencet, Parlement, no. 1118, 12 December 1528, Saint-Germain-en-Laye: “Lettre de Louise de Savoie recommandant au Parlement la cause de l’évêque de Saint–Malo [Denis Briçonnet] dans le procès qu’il soutient à cause des droits et de la juridiction du archidiacre de Reims.” X1A 9322, no. 216. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: No. 10030 – 1529, 4 May – La Bourdaisière – Marguerite to the Parlement of Paris – AN X1A 9322, no. 223. Reference in Clémencet, Parlement, no. 1126. “Lettre de Marguerite d’Angoulême demandant au Parlement de juger promptement le procès qu’elle soutient contre les blatiers de Passais, dans sa vicomté de Domfront.” New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: No. 10031 – [1529–1539, September] – Marguerite to Anne de Montmorency – Letter alluded to in her letter to Villandry, no. 770, but not given an entry number by Jourda. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No.

600

appendix a – additions and corrections

10032 – [1529–1539, September] – Marguerite to Philippe Chabot, sr. de Brion – Letter alluded to in her letter to Villandry, no. 770, but not given an entry number by Jourda. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 442 (J: 442) – [1529, October] – M. de La Trémoïlle to Marguerite – Lost letter. Allusion in response, no. 443. Renumber this letter since it is dated to October and placed by Jourda after no. 441, which is dated 7 November. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 440 (J: 440; S: 440) – [1529], 9 October – Rome – Cardinal Alessandro Farnese to Marguerite – Samaran et Patry, “Marguerite de Navarre et le Pape Paul III,” no. 1, 321. Saulnier 1974 A for notes. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 10033 – [1529, before 12 December] – Joachim de Matignon to Marguerite – Lost letter. See response, Marguerite to Matignon, no. 1109, which has been found and re-dated to 12 December [1529]. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 1109 (J: 1109) – [1529], 12 December – Fontainebleau – Marguerite to Joachim de Matignon – Labande, Correspondance de J. de Matignon, no. 45, 25. Labande dates this letter incorrectly to 1528. See no. 446 for context. Marguerite makes reference to having received letters from Matignon, thus the new letter 10033. 1109 should be assigned a new number as well. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 10034 – [?1530–Spring 1531] – Marguerite to Anne de Montmorency – BnF F.fr. 2989, fol. 27. Marguerite mentions Louise of Savoy and a conversation with “M. de Bayonne,” Jean Du Bellay. Date, before Louise’s death in 1531, and after Du Bellay’s elevation to the see of Bayonne in 1524. It may well date to sometime in 1530 when Jean Du Bellay was helping to orchestrate a positive judgment by the Faculty of Theology in Paris on Henry VIII’s annulment case, or later to the winter of 1530–1531, when Jean Du Bellay visited Louise of Savoy and Marguerite and was concurrently being investigated for heresy. There was certainly some struggle going on, since Marguerite asks Montmorency to return, “pour donner exemple a ceux quy veoullent faire honte et injustice soubz ombres de bon zelle.” New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: No. 10035 – [1530, January–July] – Marguerite to Anne de Montmorency – Location unknown. Reference in Fichier Charavay, no. 121, “Marguerite d’Angoulême, reine de Navarre. Lettre à son neveu le Grand-maître (Anne de Montmorency): (Pau, 1527), Légers raccommodages. Précieuse lettre, où elle exprime son contentement d’un événement si heureux pour le Roi et le royaume (peut-être le lit de justice où on déclara nul, le 19 décembre 1527, le funeste traité de Madrid, conclu pour tirer François Ier de captivité). ‘Ce porteur vous dira combien de larmes de joye il a veu jetter à cete compaignye où ma sœur de Vandosme ne m’abandonne jusques à mes couches, quy seront quand il plaira à Dieu, mes si tout ne sera ce que je n’envoye incontinant ma saige fame à ma nièpce.’ (Marguerite d’Angoulême, mit au monde, à Pau, le 7 janvier 1528, une fille, qui fut l’illustre Jeanne d’Albret).”

to the correspondence of marguerite of navarre

601

The Fichier Charavay date of 1527 is certainly wrong, because this letter is about the same matters mentioned in Jourda no. 454, namely Marguerite’s pregnancy with Jean d’Albret, who was born 15 July 1530, and that of her “sister de Vandôme.” However, the actual document to which Jourda refers in no. 454 (BnF F.fr. 3042, fol. 11) is a post-script to a letter by Henri d’Albret and has slightly different content. The letter mentioned here is from about the same time but it is a separate, new letter. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: No. 10036 – [1530, after January or July?] – Marguerite to Louise of Savoy – Mentioned in Lecoq, François Ier imaginaire, 400. Marguerite discusses the new ‘Royal Trinity’ now composed of Louise, Francis I, and Eleanor of Austria. Francis and Eleanor were betrothed on 20 January 1530, married by proxy, and had the formal ceremony on 7 July 1530. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 10037 – [1530–1547 – Lyon – Jean de Vauzelles] to Marguerite – Vauzelles’ dedicatory epistle to Lucian of Samostata, Le martire de verité, dialogue de Lucian mis en lumiere, trans. D.V.Z. [D’ung vraie zele = Jean de Vauzelle] (Lyon: François Juste [1530–1547?]). New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 762 (J: 762) – [1530?], 3 January – Fontainebleau – Marguerite to Anne de Montmorency – BnF F.fr. 3638, fol. 47. Génin 1, 410 mention; Ritter, no. 19. Jourda: the pregnancy of which Marguerite speaks – she had not yet felt the child kick – could not have been that of Jeanne (November 1528), nor of the one in 1533, which was sure in October. The letter could be referring to the ones in 1530 or 1537, especially Marguerite’s pregnancy with Jean in 1529–1530, since he was born in July and she was at Fontainebleau that winter. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 445 (J: 445; S: 445) – [1530, 8 January–4 February – Fontainebleau] – Marguerite to Georges d’Armagnac, bishop of Rodez – Allusion in no. 446. Saulnier 1976. Date: after 8 January, before 4 February, the date of no. 446. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 445.1 (S: 445.1) – [1530, 15–31 January] – Marguerite to Jean Poussart, bailli of Berry, (M de Fors) – Allusion in no. 446. Saulnier 1976. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 10038 – 1530, 26 January – Fontainebleau – Marguerite to Gilles de La Pommeraye – BnF F.fr. 5116, fol. 17. “Lettre de M. d’Angoulême à Gilles de la Pommeraye, ambassadeur pour le roi devers madame l’archiduchesse.” New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: No. 446 (J: 446; S: 446) – [1530], 4 February – Fontainebleau – Marguerite to Anne de Montmorency – BnF F.fr. 3024, fol. 73. Génin 1, no. 72, 243. Saulnier 1976. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 446.1 (S: 446.1) – [1530, after 4 February – Fontainebleau] – Marguerite to François Olivier – Allusion in no. 446. Saulnier 1976. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No.

602

appendix a – additions and corrections

446.2 (S: 446.2) – [1530, after 4 February – Fontainebleau] – Marguerite to X – Allusion in no. 446. Saulnier 1976. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 446.3 (S: 446.3) – [1530, after 4 February – Fontainebleau] – Marguerite to X – Allusion in no. 446. Saulnier 1976. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 446.4 (S: 446.4) – [1530, after 4 February – Fontainebleau] – Marguerite to Francis I – Allusion in no. 446. Saulnier 1976 supposes the existence of this letter, which may or may not correspond to an extant letters such as no. 450. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 454 (J: 454) – [1530], 28 March – Blois – Marguerite to Anne de Montmorency – PS to a letter of Henri de Navarre, BnF F.fr. 3042, fol. 11. Mentioned in Génin 1, 248 note. Similar to no. 10035. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: No. 10039 – [1530?], 10 June – Blois – Marguerite to the papal legate – Location unknown. Reference in Fichier Charavay, no. 121. Cf. letter nos. 467 and 468, both dated Blois, 10 June 1530. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: No. 478 (J:478; S: 478) – [1530, July – Blois] – Marguerite to Anne de Montmorency – BnF F.fr. 3042, fol. 48 (copy). Génin 1, no. 84, 259. Gaucheron, Lettres, autographes et manuscrits de la collection Henri de Rothschild, no. 62, 80; Trois cents autographes de la donation de Henri de Rothschild, Catalogue de l’exposition, pl. IV facing p. 14, cf. no. 15. Saulnier 1971 and Saulnier 1977, no. 24.1 for the house of Alençon. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 10040 – [1530, shortly before 5 September] – Marguerite to Étienne Lecourt, curé de Condé – “Tabellion d’Alençon.” Mention in notarial act cited by Gérasime Despierres, Établissement d’imprimeries à Alençon de 1529 à 1575 (Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1894), 18 n. 1, in which Étienne Lecourt renounces in favor of “maitre Gervain Bazen prestre,” the office of administrator of the Hôtel-Dieu of Mortaigne, 5 September 1530, “moyennant et obéissant ledit Lecourt au vouloir et commandement de la dicte dame [the queen of Navarre, duchess of Alençon mentioned earlier] à luy faict et esript.” The office had been granted to him by the inhabitants of Montaigne at Marguerite’s request on 9 November 1528: “L’office d’administrateur de l’Hostel-Dieu de Mortaigne, et que par le vouloir et commendement de la Royne de Navarre, duchesse d’Alençon, luy avait esté octroyé et baillé par les habitants de Mortaigne, selon la teneur de l’instance des dits bourgeois, du 9 novembre 1528.” Thus, in all likelihood, the inhabitants of Montaigne were citing a letter from Marguerite dated 9 November 1528 requesting the office for Lecourt. Lecourt was most definitely referring to a letter from Marguerite to him shortly before 5 September 1530 requiring him to give it up. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 754 (J: 754) – [1531–1538 – Paris?] – Marguerite to Anne de Montmorency – BnF F.fr. 3026, fol. 20. Génin 1, 425 mention. The reference to “avant de partir de Paris” would seem to indicate Paris as place of writing. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: No.

to the correspondence of marguerite of navarre

603

755 (J: 755) – [1531–1538] – Marguerite to Anne de Montmorency – BnF F.fr. 3026, fol. 28. Génin 1, 426 mention. Verbal echo in “ne lesseray je a me resjouir de votre nouvelle joye,” of Marguerite’s chanson spirituel, the rondo “Voici nouvelle joie.” Probably concerning the birth of one of Montmorency’s children, since Marguerite speaks of her “seur” [sœur], meaning Montmorency’s wife. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: No. 501 (J: 501; S: 501) – [1531, beginning of the year] – Marguerite to Anne de Montmorency – BnF F.fr. 3024, fol. 89. Génin 1, no. 92, 271. Saulnier 1977, 24.1 for Robertet. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 500.1 (S: 500.1) – [1531, c. 9 January – Alençon] – Marguerite to Francis I – Lost letter. Allusion in a letter from Jean Du Bellay to Anne de Montmorency, Scheurer 1, no. 93, 199–200. Saulnier 1971. Jean Du Bellay was with Marguerite at Alençon. He writes to Montmorency that, “Bois-Dauphin (Jean de Laval) a communiqué à Marguerite tout ce qu’il a vu à Montferrat, ‘Sur quoy ladicte dame en escript au Roy quelque mot par luy.’” Saulnier argues this was about the succession of Montferrat, which had just been left vacant by the death of Boniface V. Jean Du Bellay and Marguerite wanted François de Bourbon (M. de Saint-Pol) to be nominated. They were not successful. Saulnier 1977, 27.4 for the house of Alençon. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 499.1 (S: 499.1) – [1531, c. 10 January – Saint-Germain-en-Laye?] – Philippe Babou, M. de La Bourdaisière to Marguerite – Allusion in a letter of Jean Du Bellay to Anne de Montmorency, Scheurer 1, no. 95, 201–203. Saulnier 1971. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 499.2 (S: 499.2) – [1531, c. 10 January] – Saint-Germain-en-Laye – Louise of Savoy to Marguerite – Allusion in a letter of Jean Du Bellay to Anne de Montmorency, Scheurer 1, no. 95, 201–203. Saulnier 1971. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 499.3 (S: 499.3) – [1531, 12 January?] – Alençon – Marguerite to Philippe Babou, M. de La Bourdaisière – Response to a letter alluded to in Jean Du Bellay’s letter to Anne de Montmorency, Scheurer 1, no. 95, 201–203. Saulnier 1971. Hypothetical letter. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 499.4 (S: 499.4) – [1531, 12 January?] – Alençon – Marguerite to Louise of Savoy – Response to a letter alluded to in Jean Du Bellay’s letter to Anne de Montmorency, Scheurer 1, no. 95, 201–203. Saulnier 1971. Hypothetical letter. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 759 (J: 759) – [1531], 12 January – Alençon – Marguerite to Anne de Montmorency – BnF F.fr. 3260, fol. 7. Génin 1, 428 mention. The letter most probably dates from 1531, when Marguerite was in residence at Alençon in January, the only January for the period 1531–1538, that she is known to have spent there. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: No.

604

appendix a – additions and corrections

515 (J: 515; S: 515) – [1531], 1 August – Saint-Germain-en-Laye – Marguerite to Anne de Montmorency – BnF F.fr. 3024, fol. 113. Mentioned in Génin 1, 419. Saulnier 1977, 24.1 for Robertet. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: No. 552 (J: 552; S: 552) – [1531], 14 December – Amiens – Marguerite to François de Dinteville, bishop of Auxerre – BnF F.fr. 15776, fol. 251. Jourda, “Marguerite de Navarre, Lettres inédits,” no. 14, 113. Jourda, Répertoire, 123. Saulnier 1975 A. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 10041 – [1532, before 17 May] – Marguerite to Lazare de Baïf – Lost letter. Mentioned in response, no. 10042, Lazare de Baïf to Marguerite from Venice, 17 May 1532. BnF F.fr. 3941, fol. 272v–273r. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 10042 – [1532], 17 May – Venice – Lazare de Baïf to Marguerite – BnF F.fr. 3941, fol. 272v–273r. Important letter: he speaks of international relations with the Turk. More important still, he claims to be sending her a Bible in Italian “Tuscan” in accordance with her wishes that he look for religious books for her. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: No. 560.2 (S: 560bis-1) – [1532, 1 November] – Marguerite to Augustino Trivulzio – Allusion in François de Dinteville to Jean Du Bellay, Rome, 16 November 1532, Scheurer 1, no. 146, 303–305; 304. Saulnier 1971 “560bis-1” renumbered here to 560.2. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 10043 – [1533–1536] – Marguerite to the duke of Albany – Location unknown. Reference in Fichier Charavay, no. 121. On date: See Jourda no. 725. This letter probably precedes 725 in which Marguerite offers him thanks and says that he has put “them” under “obligation.” New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: No. 10044 – 1533, [before 27 June] – Marguerite to the Parlement of Paris – Lost letter. Mentioned in BnF Clairambault 334, fol. 268. “Extrait des Registres du Parlement.” Message (with a letter?) from Marguerite to the Parlement through the agency of Pierre Viole, 27 June 1533. Request for prayers for the king and his entourage during their trip. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 1110 (J: 1110; S: 1110) – [1533, c. 22 July] – Philipp Melanchthon to Marguerite and Gérard Roussel. Mentioned in Florimond de Raemond, L’histoire de la naissance, progrez, et decadence de l’hérésie (1623), 856 (not 865 as per Jourda). Saulnier 1971: Based on memory, Florimond de Raemond dates this letter to the period of the negotiations with Melanchthon about a possible religious concord, rather than their subsequent contact in the early 1540s, which he also recounts. This letter, written to Roussel and Marguerite, probably dates to July 1533 when Melanchthon wrote in excited terms to Georg Spalatin about the recent success of Roussel’s preaching sponsored by Marguerite in Paris and the reversal of fortunes of conservatives. He wrote the letter to Spalatin hot on the heels of receiving two enthusiastic reports penned by trustworthy humanist evangelical sympathizers in Paris,

to the correspondence of marguerite of navarre

605

Bartholomy Latomus and Urbanus Rhegius, whose letters arrived in July. This letter is not to be confounded with no. 597, which Melanchthon addressed directly to the queen in June 1534 on behalf of Claude Baduel, who had previously carried Latomus’s letter – and perhaps Rhegius’s as well – in the summer of 1533. Letter 1110, however, could also date to anytime from 1533 forwards. Melanchthon is known to have been in contact with Marguerite as late as 1543. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 583.1 (S: 583.1) – [1533, November – Paris] – Marguerite to Cardinal Jean de Lorraine – Mentioned in Jacques Colin’s letter to Jean Du Bellay, 11 December 1933, Scheurer 1, no. 167, 334–335. Saulnier 1971. See also René Du Bellay’s letter cited in Bourrilly and Weiss, “Jean Du Bellay, les Protestants, et la Sorbonne,” BSHPF 52 (1903), 225. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 10045 – [1534, before 11 December] – Marguerite to Cardinal Jean de Lorraine – Lost letter. On behalf of Nicolas Cop, mentioned in Jacques Colin’s letter to Cardinal Jean Du Bellay, 11 December [1533], Scheurer 1, no. 167, 334–335. See further, Bourrilly et Weiss. “Jean Du Bellay, les protestants et la Sorbonne,” BSHPF 52 (1903), 193–231; 218–219. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 583.2 (S: 583.2) – [1533, mid-December – Paris?] – Marguerite to Philippe Chabot, sr. de Brion – Mentioned in René Du Bellay’s letter to Jean Du Bellay, 20 December 1533, Paris, Scheurer 1, no. 168, 336–339; 338. Saulnier 1971. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 583.3 (S: 583.3) – [1533, c. 19 December – Paris] – Marguerite to François de La Trémoïlle, vicomte de Thouars – Mentioned in Marchegay, Lettres missives . . . tirées des archives . . . de La Trémoïlle, 109. Saulnier 1972. Mentioned in François de la Trémoïlle’s letter to Francis d’Availlolles, sr. de Roncée, and N. Du Boys, sr. de Nailly, 18–19 December 1533, Paris. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 584.1 (J: 561; S: 584.1) – [1533, after 19 December] – François de La Trémoïlle to Marguerite – Mentioned in no. 562. Saulnier 1972. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 10046 – [1533, 19–26 December – Paris] – René Du Bellay to Marguerite – Lost letter. Mentioned in René Du Bellay’s letter to Jean Du Bellay, 20 December 1533, Paris, in which he reports that he stood up to the Parlement of Paris, the admiral, and the cardinal of Lorraine. Scheurer 1, no. 168, 336–339; 338; Saulnier 1971; Bourrilly, “Jean Du Bellay, les Protestants,” BSHPF 53 (1904), 224. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 584.4 (S: 584.4) – [1534, beginning of the year] – Philip of Hesse to Marguerite – Minutes of three letters in Staatsarchiv Marburg, Politisches Archiv Landgraf Philipps des Großmütigen 1858, fol. 1; fol. 3. Mentioned in Mariotte, “Une Correspondance,” referring without specific reference to Seidel, Frankreich, 124 n. 7. Saulnier 1972 only lists one letter, thus new entries 584.5 and 584.6. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: No.

606

appendix a – additions and corrections

584.5 (S: 584.4) – [1534, beginning of the year] – Philip of Hesse to Marguerite – Minutes of three letters in Staatsarchiv Marburg, Politisches Archiv Landgraf Philipps des Großmütigen 1858, fol. 1; fol. 3. Mentioned in Mariotte, “Une Correspondance,” referring without specific reference to Seidel, Frankreich, 124 n. 7. Saulnier 1972. See no. 584.4. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: No. 584.6 (S: 584.4) – [1534, beginning of the year] – Philip of Hesse to Marguerite – Minutes of three letters in Staatsarchiv Marburg, Politisches Archiv Landgraf Philipps des Großmütigen 1858, fol. 1; fol. 3. Mentioned in Mariotte, “Une Correspondance,” referring without specific reference to Seidel, Frankreich, 124 n. 7. Saulnier 1972. See no. 584.4. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: No. 650 (J: 650) – [1534, January–July] – Marguerite to Francis I – BnF 6624, fol. 39. Génin 2, no. 80, 131. Date approximate. Jourda dates nos. 650 and 651 – which are both about the king’s special heresy commission in Alençon – to 1537 because in letter 651 Marguerite refers to her rule in the duchy over the past twelve years. He takes this to refer to the time since her husband’s death in 1525, thus dating these two letter to 1537. However, Marguerite notes in letter 650 that the special heresy commission was being used by the “héritiers d’Alençon,” Charles d’Alençon’s sisters, to undermine her control: “vous avez ousté ung bruist qui commençoit à courir, que lesdits commissaires estoient allés là pour s’enquerir de tout ce que j’avois fait en la duché despuis douze ans.” The twelve years to which Marguerite refers is the gap back to another special royal commission sent in 1522 by Francis to investigate the exchequer court of Alençon. See Ordonnances 3, 174, no. 316: “Mandement au Parlement de commettre quatre conseillers pour aller siéger à l’échiquier du duché d’Alençon. 17 juin 1522.” Moreover, letter nos. 650 and 651 have to refer to one of the two commissions established by Francis, respectively, on 19 September 1533 and again on 7 August 1534 to take over the heresy trials of those suspected of involvement in iconoclasm of June 1533. The local exchequer court had failed to render justice satisfying to Francis. In letters 650 and 651 Marguerite is appealing that the findings of the first commission, which likely had finished its business by mid-1534, would be given to her so that she could execute justice through the exchequer court. She seems to have failed, since she complied with Franci’s, wish to set up a second commission. Cf. letter no. 573, which is here re-dated to after 7 August 1534, date of the second royal commission. For the dates of these royal commission see Oursel, Notes pour servir à l’histoire de la Réforme en Normandie, 44–46. See Saulnier 1977, no. 27.4 for the house of Alençon. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 651 (J: 651) – [1534, January–July – Alençon] – Marguerite to Francis I – BnF F.fr. 6624, fol. 17. Génin 2, no. 81, 134. See no. 650 above for explanation of the new dating. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 584.2 (S: 584.2) – [1534, before 14 January] – Marguerite to the Parlement of Paris – Marchegay, Lettres missives . . . tirées des archives . . . de La Trémoïlle, 113. Saulnier 1972. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes.

to the correspondence of marguerite of navarre

607

584.3 (J: 562; S: 584.3) – [1534], 13 January – Vincennes – Marguerite to François de La Trémoïlle, vicomte de Thouars – Chartrier de Thouars, 66. Saulnier 1972. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 585 (J: 585) – [1534], 25 April – Geneva – Guillaume Farel to Marguerite – Herminjard 3, no. 463, 169. Quadroni, Farel corr., no. 127; cf. no. 126, same day as Farel to Étienne de La Forge. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 585.1 (S: 585.1) – [1534, beginning of May] – Marguerite to the Faculty of Medicine, Paris – Mentioned in Concasty, Commentaires de la Fac. de médecine . . . de Paris, 232; copied in Saulnier 1971. Saulnier notes that Pierre Roussel, the subject of the letter, also matriculated at Montpellier in 1531 and most certainly knew Rabelais. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 585.2 (S: 585.2) – [1534, mid-June] – Marguerite to Clement VII – Mentioned in a letter of Nicolas Raince to [Jean Du Bellay], 1 July 1534, Scheurer 1, no. 189, 397–401; 400. Saulnier 1971. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 585.3 (J: 1119; S: 585.3) – [1534], 25 June – Paris – Marguerite to Jean Bertrandi, president of the Parlement of Toulouse – AD Pyrénées-Atlantiques E 557. Pomés, “Une carta inedita de Margarita de Angulema,” 541–542. Saulnier 1971. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 573 (J: 573) – [1534, 7–30 August] – Marguerite to Francis I – BnF F.fr. 6624, fol. 135. Génin 2, 81, no. 38. Jourda, following Génin, dates the letter to June 1533. The letter is a complete capitulation to Francis I’s wish that she and her exchequer court in Alençon cooperate with a special heresy commission set up to investigate the iconoclasm of June 1533 in Alençon. There were two commissions. The first was authorized on 6 July 1533 and reaffirmed on 19 September 1533. The first conducted investigations, but did not pass sentence. The second was established on 7 August 1534 to pass sentence on the two iconoclasts as well as other heretics found by the first commission in the duchy. Marguerite’s swearing of utter obedience better fits with her final capitulation to Francis I’s will in 1534: earlier in 1533 she seems to have persuaded him successfully not to allow the first commission to pass sentence. See further the notes to the re-dated letter no. 650, above at [January–July 1534]. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 10047 – [1535] – Jean Barril to Marguerite – Dedicatory epistle heading Jean Barril, A la illustre et puissante princesse et dame, Marguerite de France, Royne de Navarre, Duchesse d’Alençon, et de Berry (Toulouse: Eustache Mareschal, [1535]). See Baudrier, Bibliographie lyonnaise, vol. 11, no. 28, 371. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 10048 – 1535, [before 19 February] – The Parlement of Bordeaux to Henri II de Navarre and Marguerite – Lost letter. Mentioned in Métivier, Chronique du Parlement de Bordeaux 1, 320–321. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No.

608

appendix a – additions and corrections

602.1 (S: 602.1) – [1535], 1 March – Pau – Marguerite to Charles Chabot, baron de Jarnac – Private collection. Saulnier, “Marguerite de Navarre et le baron de Jarnac,” 93–109. Saulnier 1971. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 605.1 (S: 605.1) – 1535, [beginning of October] – Strasbourg – Town Council of Strasbourg [Martin Bucer] to Marguerite – Archives du Chapitre de SaintThomas, AM Strasbourg 42, no. 22, fol. 1, 4 fols. Mentioned in Pollet, Bucer 2, 508 n. 3. Reference in Pollet, Itinérarium, 298. Not mentioned in Rott, Correspondance de Martin Bucer, at least under this date. Saulnier 1971. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: No. 10049 – 1535, [before 16 December] – Francis Bryan to Marguerite – Lost letter. Mentioned in Bryan’s letter to Cromwell of 16 December 1535, Letters and Papers 9, no. 980, 328–329. Tenor: the bailli d’Amboise is in England, he claims, at Marguerite of Navarre’s request to give her response to the issues of resisting a papal council, supporting an independent one, as well as of Francis breaking with Rome in order to join an alliance with the Schmalkaldic League and Henry. Evidently, she did not think that there was much hope for these plans, since Bryan says that he has “little to do here” given her response to those proposals. See notes in Letters and Papers. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 10050 – [1536?] – Marguerite to Renée de France, duchess of Ferrara – Location unknown. Reference in Fichier Charavay, no. 121. Date: See Jourda nos. 609, 610 and 613 on the proposed visit of Renée and her daughter to France. Fichier Charavay, no. 121, “Marguerite de Valois à Renée de France, duchesse de Ferrare. Elle l’invite à venir en France, au nom du roi, son frère, qui en sera très aisé de lui fera bonne chère. La voyage sera fort avantageux au duc, son mari. Félicitations sur la naissance de sa fille.” New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: No. 10051 – [after 1536] – Marguerite to John Calvin – Mentioned in Florimond de Raemond, L’histoire de la naissance, progrez, et decadence de l’hérésie (1623), 922–923. No other testimony about this letter. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 10052 – [1536, c. 18 February] – Marguerite to Cardinal Jean Du Bellay – J. Pierpont Morgan Library, R-V, Rulers of France, Francis I no. 53, MA 1346-174 (original). BnF F.fr. 19577, fol. 189v–190r (copy). Scheurer 2, no. 336, 259–260. Marguerite asks Cardinal Du Bellay to use his influence with the pope to have Robert Lencourt, bishop of Chalons, named cardinal. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 613 (J: 613; S: 613) – [1536, May–June] – Marguerite to Renée de France, duchess of Ferrara – Modena, Archivio di Stato, Lettere di principi esteri, Francia. Bonnet, BSHPF 15 (1866), 128 and 37 (1888), 117. Saulnier 1977, no. 54.1 for Abbé Turpennay, Jean de Selve, who was the nephew of Jean de Selve, Marguerite’s almoner and the first president of the Parlement of Paris. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 614 (J: 614) – [1536, May–June – Tournon] – Marguerite to Anne de Montmorency – BnF F.fr. 3638, fol. 5. Jourda, “Marguerite de Navarre, Lettres

to the correspondence of marguerite of navarre

609

inédits,” no. 17, 115–116. Jourda, Répertoire, 136–137. See Mémoires Du Bellay, vol. 3, 42 for Henri de Navarre’s trip to Tournon. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 10053 – 1536, [3 July or 31 December – Strasbourg] – Martin Bucer to Marguerite – Archives du Chapitre de Saint-Thomas, AM Strasbourg. Mentioned in Rott, Correspondance de Martin Bucer, 60, without specific reference to the archive document. Cf. Pollet, Bucer 2, 9 n. 3, who mentions: “3 lettres de 1536–38: AST 167, no. 16, fol. 284; no. 152, fols. 335–347 and 391–396. Is Rott’s letter, noted here, one of those Pollet cites? New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: No. 621 (J: 621) – [1536], 4 July – Lyon – Marguerite to M. de La Rochepot, [François de Montmorency] – BnF F.fr. 3062, fol. 24. Jourda, “Marguerite de Navarre, Lettres inédits,” no. 20, 117–118. Jourda, Répertoire, 138–139. Date noted by another hand on verso. Jourda’s transcription is faulty for “. . . esté requise (de personne?) fors . . .” read “. . . esté requise de ce faire fois du propre père dudict escollier . . .” New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 622 (J: 622; S: 622) – [1536, 22–23 July] – Marguerite to Anne de Montmorency – BnF F.fr. 3005, fol. 17; Clairambault 335, fol. 61. Génin 1, no. 122, 316. See Saulnier 1975 A, for day of month. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 638 (J: 638; S: 638) – [1536, 23–24 August] – Marguerite to Francis I – BnF F.fr. 3021, fol. 55; Clairambault 335, fol. 62 [Vol. 85, 55]. Génin 1, no. 127, 325. Saulnier 1977 “Itinéraire, Heptaméron XVIII” for Fürstenberg. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 639.1 (S: 639.1) – [1536, beginning of September – between Nîmes and Lyon] – Marguerite and Henri II de Navarre to Jacques de Pons. Mentioned in a letter from Jacques de Pons to Charles Chabot, “L’abbaye,” Bulletin 61, no. 81. Saulnier 1971 New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 646.1 (J: 1100; S: 646.1) – [1536], 28 October – Lyon – Marguerite to Antoinette de Bourbon – Collection de M. Meaume (olim). Pimodan, La mère de Guises, Antoinette de Bourbon, new ed. (1925), 320. Saulnier 1971. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 646.2 (J: 646; S: 646.2) – [1536, end of year] – Nîmes – Consuls and bishop of Nîmes to Marguerite – Nîmes, Archives de l’Hôtel de Ville, Registre du XVIe siècle, délibérations, fols. 50–51. Mentioned in Ménard, Histoire de la ville de Nîmes 4, 132–133. Saulnier 1971. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: No. 646.3 (S: 646.3) – [1536, end of year – Avignon?] – Marguerite to consuls of Nîmes – Nîmes, Archives de l’Hôtel de Ville, Registre du XVIe siècle, délibérations, fols. 50–51. Ménard, Histoire de la ville de Nîmes 4, 132–133. Saulnier 1971. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes.

610

appendix a – additions and corrections

650 and 651 – See above at [1534, January–July] 10054 – [1537?] – Bonaventure Des Périers (Maistre Sarcomoros) to Marguerite – Maistre Sarcomoros [Bonaventure Des Périers], Pronostication des pronostications (Lyon: Jean Morin, 1537). For reference, see Bonaventure de Périers, Le Cymbalum mundi, introduction and notes by Yves Delègue (Paris: Honoré Champion, 1995), 106. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 668 (J: 668; S: 668) – [1537, before 25 March – near Amiens] – Marguerite to Francis I – BnF F.fr. 6624, fol. 51. Génin 2, no. 82, 136. Saulnier 1977, no. 27.4, for house of Alençon. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 10055 – [1537, after 8 April to 5 July 1538] – Marguerite to Martin Bucer – Allusion in Bucer’s letter to Marguerite, 5 July 1537, no. 774. Bucer writes: “Quia tua celestudo priores literas tam benevole suscepit . . .” which suggests that he learned of her welcome reception of his letters orally, but the messenger would have had, as was Marguerite’s usual practice, a letter of credence from her. Whether or not she composed an actual letter or not is rather less important than the fact that she expressed her gratitude, through some medium of communication, to Bucer for his previous letters. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 10056 – [1537, May–June – Paris] – Marguerite to Guillaume d’Izernay – Allusion in letter to Anne de Montmorency, no. 686. Two letters mentioned, thus the new letter number. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 685.1 (S: 685.1) – [1537, 17 June – Saint-Cloud] – Marguerite to Michel Briçonnet, bishop of Nîmes – “Registre de Jean Payan” for 1537 ff. Mention in Puech, La Renaissance et la Réforme à Nîmes 1, CXLVI. Saulnier 1971, 581. See also letters nos. 646, 796, and 827. This letter accompanied others to Jean Albenas, “lieutenant général de Monsieur le Senechal.” New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 685.2 (S: 685.2) – [1537, 17 June – Saint-Cloud] – Marguerite to Jean Albenas – “Registre de Jean Payan” for 1537 ff. Mention in Puech, La Renaissance et la Réforme à Nîmes 1, CXLVI. Saulnier 1971, 581. See also letters nos. 646, 796, and 827. This letter accompanied Marguerite’s letter to Michel Briçonnet Albenas died in 1541 and Claude Baduel composed Oratio funeris in morte Jacobi Albenaii (Lyon: Gryphe, 1543), see Gaufrès, Baduel, 125. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 695.1 (S: 695.1) – [1537, end of September – Fontainebleau?] – Marguerite to Pierre Lizet, president of the Parlement of Paris – Allusion in the deliberations of the Faculty of Medicine, Paris, Commentaires de la Faculté de médecine, 278. Saulnier 1971: Marguerite asked the president for public prayers and processions for the safety of the king, queen, and dauphin. He passed the request to the university. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 707.1 (S: 707.1) – [1537, October at the latest] – Marguerite to the Parlement of Bordeaux – Allusion in no. 707.4. Saulnier 1971. The affair of Étienne Robert. Marguerite sought to protect Étienne from her uncle Hughes Casaux,

to the correspondence of marguerite of navarre

611

councillor of the Parlement of Bordeaux. Marguerite asks the Parlement to entrust Étienne to someone trustworthy pending further instructions. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 707.2 (S: 707.2) – [1537, October] – Bordeaux – The Parlement of Bordeaux to Marguerite – Allusion in no. 707.4. Saulnier 1971. The affair of Étienne Robert. Marguerite had sought to protect Étienne from her uncle Hughes Casaux, councillor of the Parlement of Bordeaux (letter 707.1), asking the parlement to entrust her to someone trustworthy. The parlement decided to give charge of Étienne Robert to Mademoiselle de Ribérac. The response was carried to Marguerite by the “avocat general” of the Parlement, Bernard de Lahet. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 707.3 (S: 707.3) – [1537, October] – Marguerite to Hughes de Casaux – Allusion in no. 707.4. Saulnier 1971. Doubtful letter. Hughes de Casaux explained to the Parlement of Bordeaux that he had not followed their orders to give up his niece, Étienne Robert, alleging he had a letter from Marguerite allowing him to remain her guardian. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 707.4 (S: 707.4) – [1537, October–November] – Marguerite to the Parlement of Bordeaux – AM Bordeaux, Coll. Verthamon, 18th c. MS copy. Registre secret du Parlement, vol. 3 (1770), 6–7. Lopez de Meneses, “Marguerite de Navarre et le Parlement de Bordeaux,” 36 ff.; same author signed Madalena Saez-Pomez, “Margarita de Angulema y Enrique de Albret en Burdeos,” 491 and 495. Saulnier 1971. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 707.5 (S: 707.5) – [1537, October–November] – Marguerite to madame de Ribérac – AM Bordeaux, Coll. Verthamon, 18th c. MS copy. Registre secret du Parlement, vol. 3 (1770), 6–7. Lopez de Meneses, “Marguerite de Navarre et le Parlement de Bordeaux,” 36 ff.; same author signed Madalena Saez-Pomez, “Margarita de Angulema y Enrique de Albret en Burdeos,” 490–491. Saulnier 1971. Saulnier found an interesting allusion to Mlle de Ribérac in Florimond de Raemond, L’histoire de la naissance, progrez, et decadence de l’hérésie (1623), 865. Mlle de Ribérac, of the house of Cantal, was raised by Marguerite. Raemond gathered information from de Ribérac for his Histoire. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 759 – See above at [1531], 12 January. 762 – See above at [1530], 3 January. 1099 (J: 1099; S: 1099) – [1538?] – Marguerite to Renée de France, duchess of Ferrara – Modena, Archivio di Stato, Lettere di principi esteri, Francia. Saulnier 1980: possibly the same as 771.2. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: No. 10057 – [c. 1538] – Denis Faucher to Marguerite – Vincent Barral, Chronologia sanctorum . . . insulae Lerinensis (Lyon, 1613), 2nd part, 393. Poem by Denis Faucher to Marguerite. See Saulnier 1974 B and letters 771.1 and 771.2. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes.

612

appendix a – additions and corrections

10058 – [1538, 28 February – Fontainebleau] – Marguerite to Francis I – Location unknown. Reference in Fichier Charavay, no. 121, “Marguerite de Valois, sœur de François Ier. Fontainebleau, 28 février 1538. ‘Elle fait remise au sr. de Beulle des droits relief qui devait pour une terre relevant d’elle.’” New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: No. 771.1 (S: 771.1) – [1538, March? – Renée de France, duchess of Ferrara to Marguerite] – Saulnier 1980 posits very weak reasons to suppose the existence of this letter: Vittoria Colonna wrote to Marguerite in response to Marguerite’s lost letter to her [nos. 797 and 798], after having spent several months with Renée de France at Ferrara discussing religion. Saulnier feels that Renée must have lauded Vittoria Colonna to Marguerite prompting Marguerite to write to Vittoria Colonna and Marguerite to respond Renée’s letter [nos. 771.1 and 771.2]. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 771.2 (S: 771.2) – [1538, after March?] – Marguerite to Renée de France, duchess of Ferrara? – Based on letters nos. 797 and 798, Saulnier 1980 gives very weak reasons to suppose the existence of this letter: Vittoria Colonna wrote to Marguerite in response to Marguerite’s lost letters to her [nos. 797 and 798], after having spent several months with Renée de France at Ferrara discussing religion. Saulnier feels that Renée must have lauded Vittoria to Marguerite and that Marguerite must have written back a letter, which could be the same as no. 1099 (s.d.), but this is impossible to determine. See 771.1. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 772.1 (S: 772.1) – [1538, c. 22 May – Tarascon] – Claude de Bectoz to Marguerite – Reference in a letter of Denys Faucher to Guillaume Du Maine from Tarascon, 11 July 1538, which has to do with the reform of the convent of Tarascon. It seems that Denys Faucher had forwarded a letter of ‘his’ chosen abbess, Claude de Bectoz, who was helping him to reform the convent, to Guillaume Du Maine, who in turn gave it to Marguerite. Furthermore, Guillaume Du Maine seems to have spoken to Marguerite, who in turn spoke to Francis; all of this in order to help with the reform of the convent. Saulnier 1974 B for a full study. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 772.2 (S: 772.2) – [1538, c. 22 May – Tarascon] – Denis Faucher to Marguerite – Reference in a letter of Denys Faucher to Guillaume Du Maine: Vincent Barral, Chonologia sanctorum . . . insulae Lerinensis (1613), 2nd part, 297 and 420. Poem of Denys Faucher to Marguerite. Probably the verse epistle, “Ad Margaritam Valesiam, reginam Nauarrae: Laudabunt alii uenustiorem / Formosi speciem oris . . .” (Chronologia, 420). For context, see Saulnier 1974 B. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 774.1 (S: 774.1) – [1538, July? – Italy] – Georges d’Armagnac? to Marguerite – Doubtful letter: one deduced from the 1559 letter “dite de Villemadon” to Catherine de Médicis, in which the author recounts an episode of 1538 that had come to Marguerite’s attention, probably by letter. Saulnier 1975

to the correspondence of marguerite of navarre

613

A speculates that there may have been a letter (or oral communication) from someone in Italy close to Marguerite, Georges d’Armagnac?, who had knowledge of and reported to Marguerite about the meeting of the Dauphin Henry’s mignons just after the birth of his illegitimate child, Diane, in which they proposed having Catherine de Médicis set aside as sterile, since she had not yet born Henry a child. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 783 (J: 783; S: 783) – [1538, December] – Marguerite to François de la Trémoïlle – Chartrier de Thouars, 67. Saulnier 1972 for notes. Jourda notes Louise de La Trémoïlle had married Philippe de Lévis (with whose family Marguerite had been involved over marriage issues) on 15 September 1538. Cf. Chartrier de Thouars, 68 for a letter of Francis I, 8 December 1538, on the same issue. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 784.1 (S: 784.1) – [1538, c. 10 December] – Marguerite to Cardinal Alessandro Farnese – Writing from France to Cardinal Farnese on 10 December 1538, the papal nuncio, Filiberto Ferrerio, included a letter from Marguerite to the cardinal. Lestocquoy, Correspondance de nonces en France Carpi et Ferrerio, 418. Saulnier 1971. Evidently, this was not one of the other letters Marguerite had recently sent to Farnese, nos. 780 and 782. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 784.2 (S: 784.2) – [1538, mid-December?] – Marguerite to Giovanni Poggio, papal nuncio in Spain – Lestocquoy, Correspondance de nonces en France Carpi et Ferrerio, 425. Saulnier 1971. Allusion in letter of Filiberto Ferrerio, papal nuncio in France, written 26 December 1538. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 785 (J: 785; S: 785) – [1538], 29 December – Rome – Cardinal Alessandro Farnese to Marguerite – Samaran et Patry, “Marguerite de Navarre et le Pape Paul III,” 322 n. Saulnier 1980. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 10059 – 1539, 6 March – Noyon – Marguerite to the cardinal of Nycastre – Location unknown. Fichier Charavay, no. 121, “Marguerite de Valois, reine de Navarre à mon cousin, M. le cardinal de Nycastre. Noyon, le sixième jour de mars mil cinq cens trente neuf. . . . Elle écrit à son frère le légat en faveur des abbés religieux, et convent de l’abbaye de Grantmont, située en pays de Limosin ès terres et sujétions du roi de Navarre, pour les protéger contre les torts et griefs des doyens et chanoines de Thudelles, sur la possession du prieuré de Saint–Martial dépendant de la dite abbaye; elle le prie d’en écrire au pape.” New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: No. 788 (J: 788) – [1539, end of April – Geneva] – Marie Dentière to Marguerite – Dedicatory epistle heading Marie Dentière, Epitre tresutile faict et composée par une femme chrestienne de Tornay. Herminjard 5, no. 785, 295. See further William Kemp and Diane Desrosiers-Bonin, “Marie d’Ennetières et la petite grammaire hébraïque de sa fille d’après la dédicace de l’Epistre à Marguerite de Navarre (1539)” BHR 60 (1998), 117–134, and presentation with English translation in Marie Dentière, Epistle to Marguerite de

614

appendix a – additions and corrections

Navarre and Preface to a Sermon by John Calvin, ed. and trans. Mary B. McKinley, The Other Voice in Early Modern Europe (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004). New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: No. 10060 – 1539, [before 19 June] – Marguerite to Gérard Roussel – Lost letter. Mentioned in a letter of the papal nuncio in France, Filiberto Ferrerio, to Paul III, Paris, 19 June 1539. Naples, Archivio di Stato, Cart. Farn., fasc. 1337, cited in Lestocquoy, Correspondance des nonces en France Carpi et Ferrerio, no. 440, 463–464. Lestocquoy’s summary: “Le nonce a lu à la reine de Navarre un passage aimable de la lettre du pape. Après un échange de politesses la reine a souligné qu’elle avait écrit deux fois déjà à l’évêque d’Oloron, lui disant de payer les pensions dues à Mgr de Sora et à Mgr de Sorrente.” New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 10061 – 1539, [before 19 June] – Marguerite to Gérard Roussel – Lost letter. A second letter mentioned in a letter of the papal nuncio in France, Filiberto Ferrerio to Paul III, Paris, 19 June 1539. Naples, Archivio di Stato, Cart. Farn., fasc. 1337, cited in Lestocquoy, Correspondance des nonces en France Carpi et Ferrerio, no. 440, 463–464. Lestocquoy’s summary: “Le nonce a lu à la reine de Navarre un passage aimable de la lettre du pape. Après un échange de politesses la reine a souligné qu’elle avait écrit deux fois déjà à l’évêque d’Oloron, lui disant de payer les pensions dues à Mgr de Sora et à Mgr de Sorrente.” New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 788.01 (S: 788.01) – [1539?], 20 July – Castelgoffredo – Matteo Bandello to Marguerite – Bibl. Vatic. Reg. 1395. Guglielmo Manzi, ed., L’Ecuba, tragedia di Euripide, trans. Matteo Bandello (1813), 11 ff. Saulnier 1972. Bandello’s dedicatory epistle to Marguerite of his translation of Euripides’ “Hecuba” remained in manuscript until published by Manzi. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 789.1 (S: 789.1) – [1539, July–December?] – Marguerite to Matteo Bandello – Allusion in dedication of Bandello to Marguerite. Saulnier 1972. In a second dedication to her, Bandello refers to Marguerite’s response to his previous dedication of his Ecuba to her. See further no. 796.1. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 789.2 (S: 789.2) – [1539, July–December?] – Marguerite to Cesare Fregoso – Allusion in Bandello’s dedication of Novelle IV,19 (20) to Marguerite. Saulnier 1972. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 788.1 (S: 788.1) – [1539, end of August] – Cardinal Alessandro Farnese to Marguerite – Allusion in letter of Filiberto Ferrerio, 1 September 1539, Lestocquoy, Correspondance de nonces en France Carpi et Ferrerio, 483. Saulnier 1971. Filiberto Ferrerio, 1 September 1539, reported to Cardinal Farnese that he had delivered Cardinal Farnese’s letter to Marguerite. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 10062 – [1539, September] – Claude Baduel to Marguerite – Lost letter. Mentioned in Puech, La Renaissance et Réforme à Nîmes, clii, “. . . il [Baduel] se

to the correspondence of marguerite of navarre

615

contente de lui [Marguerite] écrire qu’il va ‘par delà pour aider’ les consuls ‘à faire l’institution d’un collège.’” New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 791.1 (S: 791.1) – [1539, beginning of October] – Marguerite and Henri II de Navarre to François Bonvalot, the imperial ambassador – Allusion in a letter of the papal nuncio in France, Filiberto Ferrerio, 12 October 1539, in Lestocquoy, Correspondance de nonces en France Carpi et Ferrerio, 491. Saulnier 1971 and 1972. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 793.1 (S: 793.1) – [1539, 24? October] – Rome – Cardinal Alessandro Farnese to Marguerite – Lestocquoy, Correspondance de nonces en France Carpi et Ferrerio, 503. Saulnier 1971. Allusion in letter of Filiberto Ferrerio, 13 November 1539, who reported that he had not been able to deliver Cardinal Farnese’s letter to Marguerite. Later, on 25 November he reported that Stefano Dordone had done so. Context: Charles V was about to travel through France and Farnese would come as papal legate. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 793.2 (S: 793.2) – [1539, beginning of December] – Marguerite to Filiberto Ferrero, papal nuncio in France – Allusion in letter of Ferrerio to Cardinal Farnese, Amboise, 5 December 1539, Lestocquoy, Correspondance de nonces en France Carpi et Ferrerio, 510. Saulnier 1971 and Saulnier 1977, no. 24.1 for Robertet. A letter probably concerning the marriage of one of her servants, Jean Babou, sr. de La Bourdaisière with Françoise Robertet. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 796.1 (S: 796.1) – [1539, end of year] – Matteo Bandello to Marguerite – Matteo Bandello, Novelle, Scrittori d’Italia 5 (1912), 233. Saulnier 1972. Dedicatory epistle at head of “novelle,” IV, 19 (20). New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 10063 – [1540–1549] – Marguerite to Jean de Frotté – Private collection of le marquis Edouard de Frotté. Pierre Bruyère, “Trois lettres inédites de Marguerite de Navarre,” Société historique et archéologique de l’Orne 112 (1993), 139–151; no. 2, 148–149. Date: after 1540 when Frotté became one of Marguerite’s secretaries. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 10064 – [1540 – Worms] – Pier Paulo Vergerio to Marguerite – Lost letter. Mentioned in Lettere volgari di diversi nobilissimi huomini et eccellentissimi insegni scritte in diverse materie (Aldus: Venice, 1543), bk. 1, 104r–104v. Fix date more precisely based upon dates of Colloquy of Worms and the content of letter. Cf. Jourda 820. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: Yes. 10065 – [1540] – Wittenberg – [Martin Luther or Philipp Melanchthon?] to Marguerite – Zerbst GUR V, fols. 191 and 194. WA Br 9, no. 3565, 299–301. The editors of the WA Br feel that this letter could also have been written by Melanchthon. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 10066 – [1540] – Victor Brodeau to Marguerite – Dedicatory epistle in Victor

616

appendix a – additions and corrections

Brodeau, Les Louange de Jesus Christ Nostre Saulveur (Lyon: Sulpice Sabon for Antoine Constantin, 1540). For text, see Victor Brodeau, Poésies, ed. Hilary M. Tomlinson, TLF 312 (Geneva: Droz, 1982), 132–133. Jourda, Marguerite 2, 1076. Higman, Piety, B 266–270. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: No. 10067 – 1539 [1540 n.s., before 1 March – Lyon] – Jean de Vauzelles to Marguerite – Dedicatory epistle to Pietro Aretino, Trois livres de l’humanite de Jesuchrist: divinement descripte, et au vif representée par Pierre Aretin Itlaien, trans. Jean de Vauzelles, (Lyon: Melchior and Gaspar Trechsel, 1540). Date: book finished 1 March 1539 [1540 n.s.]. Picot, Les français italianisants 1, 134–137, 136–137. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 798 (J: 798; S: 798) – 1540, 15 February – Rome – Vittoria Colonna to Marguerite – Brescia, Biblioteca Quiriniana, E VIII 16, a copy which differs from Colonna, Carteggio, 185 ff. Lettere volgari di diversi noblissimi uomini (Venice, 1542), C 126v; ibid. (1564), f. 103v. Collett, A Long and Troubled Pilgrimage, with text 125–126, translation 111–112, and analysis 105–106. Saulnier 1980. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 799 (J: 799; S: 799) – [1540, beginning of March?] – Marguerite to Vittoria Colonna – Brescia, Biblioteca Quiriniana, E VIII 16, fasc. 2, fol. 1r–v. Lettere volgari di diversi noblissimi uomini (Venice, 1542), C 125v–126v and in later editions. Colonna, Carteggio, 202–206. Collett, A Long and Troubled Pilgrimage, with text 127–128, translation 113–114, and analysis 107. Saulnier 1980. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 800 (J: 800; S: 800) – [1540, March? – Rome or Orvieto] – Vittoria Colonna to Marguerite – Brescia, Biblioteca Quiriniana, E VIII 16, fasc. 2, fol. 5r–6v. Colonna, Carteggio, 200–202. Collett, A Long and Troubled Pilgrimage, with text 126–127, translation 113, and analysis 106–107. Saulnier 1980. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 800.1 (S: 800.1) – [1540, beginning of March] – Marguerite to Paul III – Allusion in response no. 800.2. Saulnier 1971: Marguerite praises M. de Rodez, Georges d’Armagnac. Cf. her letter of 6 March to the papal nuncio Filiberto Ferrerio. Georges d’Armagnac had just been commissioned as the new French ambassador to Rome and left on 8 March 1538. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 800.2 (S: 800.2) – [1540, c. 20 March] – Paul III to Marguerite – Naples, Archivio di Stato, Carteggio Farn. 707 R. Lestocquoy, Correspondance de nonces en France Carpi et Ferrerio, 550 n. 37. Saulnier 1971: Protocol letter acknowledging reception of her letter recommending the new French ambassador to Rome, Georges d’Armagnac. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 10068 – [1540, on or before 26 March] – Jean de Frotté? to Marguerite – Destroyed note “billet.” Mentioned in Marguerite’s letter to Frotté of 7 April [1540], in Pierre Bruyère, “Trois lettres inédites de Marguerite de Navarre,” Société historique et archéologique de l’Orne 112 (1993), 139–151, no. 1,

to the correspondence of marguerite of navarre

617

146–147: Marguerite to Frotté: “Frotte, Jay receu la lectre que du XXVieme jour de mars m’avez escripte avecques la billet qui estoit dedans qui m’a este bien grant plaisir, et apres l’avoir lue Je l’ay mis au feu.” New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 10069 – [1540], 26 March – Jean de Frotté to Marguerite – Mentioned in Marguerite’s letter to Frotté of 7 April [1540], in Pierre Bruyère, “Trois lettres inédites de Marguerite de Navarre,” Société historique et archéologique de l’Orne 112 (1993), 139–151, no. 1, 146–147: Marguerite to Frotté: “Frotte, Jay receu la lectre que du XXVieme jour de mars m’avez escripte avecques la billet qui estoit dedans qui m’a este bien grant plaisir, et apres l’avoir lue Je l’ay mis au feu.” New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 10070 – [1540], 7 April – Mont-de-Marsan – Marguerite to Jean de Frotté – Private collection of le Marquis Edouard de Frotté. One of four letters mentioned in Pierre Bruyère, “Trois lettres inédites de Marguerite de Navarre,” Société historique et archéologique de l’Orne 112 (1993), 139–151; no. 1, 146–147. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 802 (J: 802) – [1540], 10 May – Turin – Guillaume Du Bellay to Marguerite – BnF 5152, fol. 12v. Jourda notes the MS as BnF F.fr. 5112 instead of 5152. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: No. 802.1 (S: 802.1) – [1540, mid-May] – Marguerite to Vittoria Colonna – Allusion in a letter of Luigi Alamanni, Lyon, [c. 20 May 1540]. Saulnier 1980: Alamanni had Colonna’s letter delivered to Marguerite by Georges d’Armagnac. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 10071 – [1540, before 1 July] – Marguerite to the Faculty of Theology, Paris – Lost letter. Mentioned in Farge, Registre 2, 166, 195 A: Marguerite asks the faculty to accept a Dominican as a supernumerary student. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 10072 – [1540, c. 1 July – Paris] – The Faculty of Theology to Marguerite – Lost letter. Mentioned in Marguerite’s response, Farge, Registre 2, 168, 201 A. The faculty refused her request that they accept a Dominican as a supernumerary student and sent to her copies of the king’s letters forbidding them to take too many students. Marguerite received their letter before 8 August 1540. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 804.1 (S: 804.1) – [1540], 14 July – Anet – Marguerite and Henri II de Navarre to William, duke of Cleves – Hauptstaatsarchiv Düsseldorf, Jülich-Berg, Urk., no. 2034. Bers, Die Allianz Frankreich–Kleve, 342. Saulnier 1972. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 806 (J: 806; S: 806) – [1540, 1 August] – Orvieto – Vittoria Colonna to Marguerite – Allusion in a letter of the ambassador of the duke of Ferrara. See, Colonna, Carteggio, 204–205; Collett, A Long and Troubled Pilgrimage, 109. Saulnier 1980 suggests date. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No.

618

appendix a – additions and corrections

10073 – [1540, 8 August] – Marguerite the Faculty of Theology, Paris – Lost letter. Mentioned in Farge, Registre 2, 168, 201 A, 1 September 1540. She acknowledges the faculty’s response to her last letter and accepts their refusal to enroll a Dominican whom she was recommending. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 10074 – [1540?], 22 August – [Périgord] – Marguerite to the president of the Parlement of Bordeaux – AD Pyrénées-Atlantiques E. 676 (Carton.) 9 pièces parchemin; 24 pièces papier, 1540–1552. Catalogue “lettre originale de Marguerite de Valois à un président du parlement de Bordeaux touchant la surveillance de l’administration de la justice en Périgord et en Limousin.” Archivist’s hand: “Périgord, v. 1540.” New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: No. 807 (J: 807; S: 807) – [1540], 29 August – Paul III to Marguerite – Fontana, Renata di Francia 3, 377. Saulnier 1980 notes. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 807.1 (S: 807.1) – [1540, September?] – Vittoria Colonna to Marguerite – Allusion in a letter of Vergerio to Vittoria Colonna, Lettere volgari di diversi noblissimi uomini (Venice, 1542), bk. 1. Saulnier 1980: Marguerite’s letter was probably written after August but certainly before 21 October, when Vergerio left France. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 808 (J: 808; S: 808) – [1540, end of September] – Marguerite to Guillaume Pellicier – Allusion in response no. 811. Saulnier 1980, for re-dating and notes. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 10075 – [1540–1549], 14 September – Pau – Marguerite to Jean de Frotté – Private collection of le marquis Edouard de Frotté. Pierre Bruyère, “Trois lettres inédites de Marguerite de Navarre,” Société historique et archéologique de l’Orne 112 (1993), 139–151; no. 3, 150–151. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 814 (J: 814; S: 814) – [1540, October?] – Marguerite to Paul III – Parma, Archivio di Stato, Carteggio fanesiano. Nolhac, Lettres de la Reine de Navarre, 7–8; Samaran et Patry, “Marguerite de Navarre et le Pape Paul III.” Saulnier 1980, for notes. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 817 (J: 817) – [1540, October] – William, duke of Cleves to Marguerite – Allusion in letter of Wallop to Henry VIII, Letters and Papers 16, no. 240, 105. Note correction to Jourda’s reference to Letters and Papers. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 811.1 (S: 811.1) – [1540, c. 8 October] – Sebastiano Serlio to Marguerite – Allusion in letter of Guillaume Pellicier to Marguerite, no. 811. Saulnier 1980. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 817.1 (S: 817.1) – [1540, 17? November] – Marguerite to Cardinal Alessandro Farnese? – Allusion in letter of Filiberto Ferrerio to Farnese, Melun, 17 November 1540, Lestocquoy, Correspondance de nonces en France Carpi et Ferrerio, 614. Saulnier 1971: Ferrerio refers somewhat cryptically to a letter by Marguerite to either Farnese, Paul III, or Georges d’Armagnac. This let-

to the correspondence of marguerite of navarre

619

ter could be the same as others on the subject of this letter: the marriage of Vittoria Farnese. See nos. 812 and 815, cf. 807, 810, 813, and 815. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 818.01 (J: 1015; S: 818.01) – [1540], 9 December – Fontainebleau – Marguerite to Bernard d’Abbadie, chancellor of Navarre – AD Pyrénées-Atlantiques E 572. Champollion-Figeac, Documents historiques inédits 3, 575. Saulnier 1975 A. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 818.1 (S: 818.1) – [1540, 11? December] – Marguerite to X – Allusion in a letter of Dandino, see Lestocquoy, Correspondance des nonces en France: Capodiferro, Dandino et Guidiccione, 4. Saulnier 1971, Check vs. 818.01, 646.4, and 1015. This letter might be related to no. 819.1. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 819 (J: 819) – [1540], 12 December – Venice – Guillaume Pellicier to Marguerite – Hauptstaatsarchiv Düsseldorf, Jülich-Berg, no. 17, fol. 170. Correspondance politique de Guillaume Pellicier 1, 190; mentioned in Ruble, Mariage, 69. Saulnier 1980. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 819.01 (S: 819.1[sic]) – [1540, c. 12 December] – Sebastiano Serlio to Marguerite – Allusion in letter from Pellicier to Marguerite, no. 819; Correspondance politique de Guillaume Pellicier 1, 190. Saulnier 1980 numbers this letter “819.1,” but Saulnier had already assigned this number in Saulnier 1971 to a letter from Marguerite to Paul III. Logically, the number of the letter should precede 819, which reports it as having already been written, e.g., 818.2, but Saulnier’s numbering should be respected as nearly as possible, thus 819.01. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 819.1 (S: 819.1) – [1540, before 16 December] – Marguerite to Paul III – Allusion in letter of Ferrerio, 16 December 1540, Lestocquoy, Correspondance de nonces en France Carpi et Ferrerio, 619. Saulnier 1971. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 819.2 (S: 819.2) – [1540, mid-December] – Georges d’Armagnac to Marguerite – Allusion in Dandino’s letter of 31 December 1540, Lestocquoy, Correspondance des nonces en France: Capodiferro, Dandino et Guidiccione, 15. Saulnier 1971. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 819.3 (S: 819.3) – [1540, mid-December] – Jean de Monluc to Marguerite – Allusion in Dandino’s letter of 31 December 1540, Lestocquoy, Correspondance des nonces en France: Capodiferro, Dandino et Guidiccione, 15. Saulnier 1971. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 821 (J: 821; S: 821) – [1540, after 17 December] – Marguerite to Paul III – Parma, Archivio di Stato, Carteggio fanesiano. Nolhac, Lettres de la Reine de Navarre, 8–9. Allusion in a letter of Ferrerio, 16 December 1540, Lestocquoy, Correspondance de nonces en France Carpi et Ferrerio, 619. Saulnier 1971 for date and notes. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes.

620

appendix a – additions and corrections

821.1 (S: 821.1) – [1540, 24 December – Rome] – Cardinal Alessandro Farnese to Marguerite – Allusion in Dandino’s letter to Cardinal Farnese, 20 January 1541, Lestocquoy, Correspondance des nonces en France: Capodiferro, Dandino et Guidiccione, 27. Saulnier 1971. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 820.1 (J: 823; S: 820.1) – 1540, 25 December – Speyer – Barnabé de Voré to Marguerite of Navarre – Hauptstaatsarchiv Düsseldorf, Jülich-Berg 2, no. 1940, fol. 180r. Bers, Die Allianz Frankreich–Kleve, 105; mention in Ruble, Mariage, 77 n. 1. Saulnier 1972, with transcription, noting false date in Ruble, Mariage, “[25 January 1541],” and Jourda no. 823, “[21 Jan. 1541]” for the same letter. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 821.2 (S: 821.2) – [1540, end of December] – Marguerite to Georges d’Armagnac – Response to no. 819.2, allusion in Dandino’s letter of 31 December 1540, Lestocquoy, Correspondance des nonces en France: Capodiferro, Dandino et Guidiccione, 15. Saulnier 1971. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 821.3 (S: 821.3) – [1540, end of December] – Marguerite to Jean de Monluc – Response to no. 819.2, allusion in Dandino’s letter of 31 December 1540, Lestocquoy, Correspondance des nonces en France: Capodiferro, Dandino et Guidiccione, 15. Saulnier 1971. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 10076 – 1541, [before 5] January – Marguerite the Faculty of Theology, Paris – Lost letter. Mentioned in Farge, Registre 2, 174, 209 A. She writes on behalf of a Dominican student. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 822.1 (S: 822.1) – [1541], 10 January – Fontainebleau – Marguerite to Philip of Hesse – Marburg, Polit. Arch. No. 1858. Mariotte, “Une Correspondance,” 118. Saulnier 1972: copies of this letter were transmitted to the Saxon court as well as the duke of Cleves. Saulnier notes that Marguerite was trying to encourage Philip of Hesse to remain in the evangelical fold just as the emperor was pressuring him to abandon the Protestant cause with threats of trying him for his bigamous marriage. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 822.2 (S: 822.2) – [1541, c. 16 January – near Fontainebleau] – Marguerite to William, duke of Cleves – Allusion in a letter of Jean Frotté, Marguerite’s secretary, to the duke of Cleves, Bers, Die Allianz Frankreich–Kleve, 106. Saulnier 1972: The marriage contract of Jeanne d’Albret with the duke had already been signed through representatives. Now Marguerite sought the conclusion of the marriage. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 822.3 (S: 822.3) – [1541, c. 17 January – near Fontainebleau] – Marguerite to William, duke of Cleves – Allusion in Herman Cruser to the duke of Cleves, 17 January 1541, Bers, Die Allianz Frankreich–Kleve, 107. Saulnier 1972: Marguerite asks through Cruser that her letter and the others that she was sending be translated and sent on to the Saxon court to prove that

to the correspondence of marguerite of navarre

621

Marguerite and Francis were in their camp and to have this made known to their allies. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 828.1 (S: 828.1) – 1541, 20 February – Marburg – Philip of Hesse to Marguerite – Weimar, Sachsen-Ernestinischen Gesamtarchive, C no. 872, 97–99. Mention in Mentz, Johann-Friedrich der Grossmütige 2, 345. Saulnier 1972. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: No. 833.1 (S: 833.1) – [1541, 20 February–5 May] – Marguerite to Hieronimo Dandino, papal nuncio in France – Allusion in letter of Dandino, Amboise, 9 May 1541, Lestocquoy, Correspondance des nonces en France: Capodiferro, Dandino et Guidiccione, 55. Saulnier 1971: Francis I had led Dandino to see Jeanne d’Albret at Tours and was then leaving to see Marguerite and Henry de Navarre at Cognac. Dandino said that Marguerite had written to her two or three times since he had last seen her at court, c. 14–15 February. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 833.2 (S: 833.2) – [1541, 20 February–5 May] – Marguerite to Hieronimo Dandino, papal nuncio in France – Allusion in letter of Dandino, Amboise, 9 May 1541, Lestocquoy, Correspondance des nonces en France: Capodiferro, Dandino et Guidiccione, 55. Saulnier 1971: Francis I had led Dandino to see Jeanne d’Albret at Tours and was then leaving to see Marguerite and Henry de Navarre at Cognac. Dandino said that Marguerite had written to her two or three times since he had last seen her at court, c. 14–15 February. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 833.3 (S: 833.3) – [1541, beginning of March] – William, duke of Cleves to Marguerite – Allusion in letter of Herman Cruser to Johann Ghogreve, Blois, 25–26 March 1541, Bers, Die Allianz Frankreich–Kleve, 113. Saulnier 1972 notes that according to the Répertoire, no. 836, and Ruble, Mariage, 289, there had been no correspondence between Marguerite and the duke of Cleves since late 1540. The letter of Herman Cruser to Johann Ghogreve indicates that the duke had written to Marguerite near the beginning of March 1541. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 830.1 (S: 830.1) – [1541], 27 March – Nérac – Marguerite to Philip of Hesse – Marburg, Polit. Arch. No. 1858. Mariotte, “Une Correspondance,” 120. Saulnier 1972. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 10077 – [1541, before 7 May] – Marguerite to the Parlement of Bordeaux – Lost letter informing the parlement or her coming visit. Mentioned in Métivier, Chronique du Parlement de Bordeaux 1, 360–361. The Parlement had been preparing for an official entry by Marguerite, then, having been informed that she would not enter the city, they sent a delegation to her. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 10078 – [1541, c. 7 May] – Marguerite to the Parlement of Bordeaux – Lost letter informing the parlement that she was cancelling her visit. Mentioned in Métivier, Chronique du Parlement de Bordeaux 1, 360–361. The Parlement

622

appendix a – additions and corrections

had been preparing for an official entry by Marguerite, then, having been informed that she would not enter the city, they sent a delegation to her. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 835 (J: 850) – Marguerite to John Calvin. Cancel 835. Based on a false reading of Herminjard’s notes, Jourda mistakenly supposed two letters from Calvin to Marguerite, one in April and the other in July 1541, which he numbers 835 and 850. Calvin’s letter to which Marguerite alludes in hers of July, no. 851, had to have been the one carried by Sleidan coming back from Regensburg in April 1541. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 853.1 (S: 853.1) – [1541, at latest 6 August] – Marguerite to Paul III – Allusion in letter of Hieronimo Capodiferro, Moulins, 6 August 1541. He included a response from the queen of Navarre to a papal brief, Correspondance des nonces en France: Capodiferro, Dandino et Guidiccione, 67. Saulnier 1971: It may be the same as one of the other two in the Répertoire, nos. 855 or 867. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 10079 – [1541, before 13 September] – Marguerite to James V of Scotland – Lost letter? British Museum [Library] Add. MS 19, 401, fol. 35. Mentioned in a letter of the cardinal of St. Andrews to James V, 13 September 1541. Cited in Letters and Papers 16, no. 1178, 548–549. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 856.1 (J: 869; S: 856.1) – [1541, 25 September – York] – Charles de Marillac to Marguerite – Allusion in letter of Marguerite to Marillac, no. 858.1 (Jourda no. 875), published by Kaulek, Correspondance . . . de Castillon et de Marillac, 347 and dated by him to 8 October 1541. Saulnier 1972: Marillac, who was in York at the time, was probably excusing himself for not keeping her informed about affairs in England. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 10080 – [1541, 27 September – Lyon] – Marguerite to treasurers of the duchy of Alençon – Location unknown. Fichier Charavay, no. 121, “Marguerite de France, reine de Navarre, Lyon, 27 septembre 1541. Mandement aux gens tenant sa cour des comptes à Alençon pour les aviser que son très ami cousin François, seigneur de La Trémoille, lui a fait l’hommage qu’il lui doit pour ses seigneuries de Condé et de Saint-Léger, tenant et mouvant d’elle à cause de la grosse tour d’Issoudun.” New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: No. 857.1 (S: 857.1) – [1541, c. 4 October] – William, duke of Cleves to Marguerite – Allusion in a letter of the Council of Jülich-Cleves to Cruser, in Bers, Die Allianz Frankreich–Kleve, 144. In affairs with Cleves, Louis de Lestrange seems to have been Marguerite’s trusted servant, more so than the “brave mais simple” Serrant and the traitor La Planche. Saulnier 1972. One of several letters by the duke to French courtiers. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 858.1 (J: 875; S: 858.1) – [1541], 8 October – Cuisery, [Saône-et-Loire] – Marguerite to Marillac – Paris, Archives du Ministère des Affaires étrangères, Correspondance politique d’Angleterre, vol. 5, fol. 106v. Kaulek, Corre-

to the correspondence of marguerite of navarre

623

spondance . . . de Castillon et de Marillac, 347; Letters and Papers 16, 582, no. 1241. Saulnier 1972 for date and location. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 858.2 (S: 858.2) – [1541, c. 11 October] – Marguerite to William, duke of Cleves – Allusion in a letter of Herman Cruser to the duke of Cleves, Tournus, 11 October 1541, Bers, Die Allianz Frankreich–Kleve, 155. Saulnier 1972: One of a suite of letters including those by Jeanne d’Albret, her governess, Aimée de La Fayette, dame de Silly and Longray, the bailli of Caen, François Olivier, the chancellor of Alençon, and Francis I. The main matter at hand: Marguerite and Francis I wanted to send Cruser, the duke of Cleves’ representative, in the name of France to the imperial diet. The duke’s permission was needed. Marguerite would take care of the two maidens of honor the duke should send to Jeanne d’Albret. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 858.3 (S: 858.3) – [1541, autumn] – Marguerite to Protestant princes of the Empire – Weimar, Sachsen-Ernestinischen Gesamtarchive, C no. 382. Mentioned in Mentz, Johann-Friedrich der Grossmütige 2, 351 and n. 3. Saulnier 1972. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: No. 858.4 (S: 858.4) – [1541, autumn] – Marguerite to John Fredrrick, elector of Saxony – Weimar, Sachsen-Ernestinischen Gesamtarchive, C no. 382. Mentioned in Mentz, Johann-Friedrich der Grossmütige, 2, 351 and n. 3. Saulnier 1972. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: No. 858.5 (S: 858.5) – [1541], 22 October – John Fredrrick, elector of Saxony to Marguerite – Weimar, Sachsen-Ernestinischen Gesamtarchive, C no. 382. Mentioned in Mentz, Johann-Friedrich der Grossmütige 2, 351 and n. 3. Saulnier 1972. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: No. 858.6 (S: 858.6) – [1541], 29 October – London – Charles de Marillac to Marguerite – Hauptstaatsarchiv Düsseldorf, Jülich-Berg, no. 17, 343. Ruble, Mariage, 301–302 n. 2. Saulnier 1972. Note corrections to Saulnier for MS location. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 10081 – [1541, 29 October 1541–17 January 1542] – Marguerite to Charles de Marillac – Allusion in Marillac’s letter to Marguerite, London, 17 January 1542, Paris, Archives du Ministère des Affaires étrangères, Correspondance politique d’Angleterre, vol. 5, fol. 115v. Cited by Kaulek, Correspondance . . . de Castillon et de Marillac, no. 387, 381–382. Marillac’s reference to letters from Marguerite to Marillac in his letter to her of 17 January 1542 was accounted for by Jourda, Répertoire, under the no. 875. Since Saulnier 1972 has re-dated no. 875 to 8 October 1541 (no. 858.1). Marillac’s 17 January 1542 letter, then, is referring to other letters. Marguerite must have written these in response to his letter of 29 October 1541 (Saulnier 1972, no. 858.6), which elicited his response of 17 January 1542. These lost letters to Marillac accompanied a portrait of herself Marguerite had sent to Anne of Cleves, which would have been accompanied by a letter

624

appendix a – additions and corrections

by Marguerite to Anne. Cf. Saulnier 1972, nos. 856.1 (Jourda no. 869) and 858.1 (Jourda no. 875) and 858.6. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 10082 – [1541, 29 October 1541–17 January 1542] – Marguerite to Anne of Cleves – Allusion in Paris, Archives du Ministère des Affaires étrangères, Correspondance politique d’Angleterre, vol. 5, fol. 115v. See Marillac to Marguerite, London, 17 January 1542, in Kaulek, Correspondance . . . de Castillon et de Marillac, no. 387, 381–382, letter nos. 882 and 882bis. See also, no. 10081. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 861 (J: 861) – [1541, c. 4 November] – Marguerite to William, duke of Cleves – Hauptstaatsarchiv Düsseldorf, Jülich-Berg, no. 17, 460. Ruble, Mariage, 297–298. Two letters in the same dossier, fols. 321 and 334, date the mission of La Planche, who is mentioned in the letter, to the beginning of November. See Saulnier 1972 for further notes and dating. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 861.1 (S: 861.1) – [1541, c. 4 November] – Marguerite to Johann Ghogreve, chancellor of Jülich – Allusion in no. 861, which it redoubles. Saulnier 1972. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 10083 – [1541, before 12 November?] – Marguerite to Charles Du Bois? – Alluded to in Hauptstaatsarchiv Düsseldorf, Jülich-Berg, no. 17, fol. 324 and 335. Ruble, Mariage, 157 n. 2, mentions two letters by Charles Du Bois to the duke of Cleves in the Düsseldorf archives related to Marguerite’s message via Du Bois, warning the duke to beware of the intrigues of La Planche, servant of the king, who was on a mission in Germany. Seeking a trusty messenger, Marguerite had to summon the duke’s man Du Bois. Beyond her letter to Du Bois asking him to visit, Marguerite addressed a letter of credence on his behalf to the duke, which is no. 864. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: No. 864 (J: 864; S: 864) – [1541, 12 November] – Marguerite to William, duke of Cleves – Hauptstaatsarchiv Düsseldorf, Jülich-Berg, no. 17, 466. Ruble, Mariage, 157 n. 2 and text 300–301. Ruble dates the letter to 12 November. The enseigne in question must be the present spoken of in her letter to the chancellor of Cleves of 12 November, no. 865. Saulnier 1972. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 874 (J: 874) – [1541, December] – John Fredrrick, elector of Saxony to Marguerite – Allusion in Bibliothèque de l’Institut de France, Registre de Frotté, MS 1831, fol. 57 payment to carrier of two letters to the elector of Saxony. Saulnier 1972, allusion also in Charles du Bois to the duke of Cleves, 12 January 1542; see Bers, Die Allianz Frankreich–Kleve, 181. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 871 (J: 871) – [1541, after 4 December] – Geneva – John Calvin to Marguerite – A very hypothetical letter. Allusion in Calvin and Viret’s letter from Geneva to Farel in Neuchâtel, Herminjard 7, no. 1076, 373, “Si videtur expedire, literas meas adjungi ad sororem, tantum indicate.” Calvin is only offering to write a letter. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No.

to the correspondence of marguerite of navarre

625

914.1 (S: 914.1) – [1542] – Marguerite and Henri II de Navarre to Francis I – Saulnier 1972. See Saulnier for a complex argument about an implied letter. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 887 (J:887; S:887) – [1542, May?] – William, duke of Cleves to Marguerite – Allusion in response, no. 890. Saulnier 1972 for date and notes. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 890 (J:890; S:890) – [1542, May?] – Marguerite to William, duke of Cleves – Lost letter. Mentioned in a letter of Cruser to the duke of Cleves, 1 May 1542. Hauptstaatsarchiv Düsseldorf, Jülich-Berg II, no. 1940, fols. 382–386. Ruble, Mariage, 308. Bers, Die Allianz Frankreich–Kleve, 205. Saulnier 1972 for date and notes. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 891.01 (S:891.01) – [1542, beginning of May?] – Otto-Henrich von Pfalz-Neuburg to Marguerite – Allusion in letter of Herman Cruser to the duke of Cleves, 13 May 1542, in Bers, Die Allianz Frankreich–Kleve, 210. Saulnier 1972. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 891.02 (S: 891.02) – [1542, mid-May] – Marguerite to M. de Serrnat – Allusion in 891.04. Bers, Die Allianz Frankreich–Kleve, 212. Saulnier 1972. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 891.03 (S: 891.03) – [1542, mid-May] – M. de Serrnat to Marguerite – Allusion in 891.04. Bers, Die Allianz Frankreich–Kleve, 226. Saulnier 1972. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 891.04 (S: 891.04) – [1542] – M. de Serrnat to Marguerite – Hauptstaatsarchiv Düsseldorf, Jülich-Berg II, no. 1940, fol. 483r. Bers, Die Allianz Frankreich–Kleve, 226. Saulnier 1972. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 891.05 (S: 891.05) – [1542] – M. de Serrnat to Marguerite – Hauptstaatsarchiv Düsseldorf, Jülich-Berg II, no. 1940, fol. 506r. Bers, Die Allianz Frankreich–Kleve, 248. Saulnier 1972. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 10084 – [1542] – Claude Baduel to Marguerite – Dedicatory epistle prefacing Claude Baduel, Oratio funebris in funere Floretae Sarrasiae habita (Lyon: Étienne Dolet, 1542). New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 881.1 (S: 881.1) – [1542, c. 12 January] – Marguerite to William, duke of Cleves – Allusion in letter of Du Boys to the duke of Cleves, 12 January 1542, cited in Saulnier 1972 notes to no. 874; Bers, Die Allianz Frankreich–Kleve, 181. Saulnier 1972. Letter carried by François Yzoré, sr. de Fontenay, a few days in advance of the arrival of La Croix to ensure his good treatment, so that the duke’s court will be well-thought of at court. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 883.1 (S: 883.1) – [1542, c. February – Nîmes] – Marie de Navarre to Marguerite? – Possible mention in letter of Jean de Montcalm to his son-in-law, Pierrre Pavée, sr. de Servas, 23 January 1542 n.s., suggesting that Marie de Navarre be prompted to write to Marguerite on behalf of the University of Nîmes. Puech, La Renaissance et la Réforme à Nîmes, CXLIII n. 1. Saulnier 1971: hypothetical letter. It is unclear wether Marie did in fact write the letter. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No.

626

appendix a – additions and corrections

10085 – [1542, February?] – Marguerite to Philipp Melanchthon – Zerbst, “Abschrift in Weyrau-Klitschdorf.” Mentioned in a letter of Franz Burkhard to Melanchthon, Speyer, 11 March 1542, cited in WA Br 10, no. 3565, 300: “Das umgekehrt auch Margarete mit Melanchthon korrespondiert hat, ergift sich aus seinem Briefe Franz Burkhards an Melanchthon, Speyer 11. März 1542: ‘Mitto tibi literas ex Gallia missas et aliorum bonorum virorum, ac scripsit tibi quoque regina Navarrae, quas literas a principe nostro haud dubie accipes.’” New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 888.1 (S: 888.1) – [1542, mid-April] – Marguerite to Paul III – Mention in a letter of Stanchini to Cardinal Farnese, 23 April, 1542, in Lestocquoy, Correspondance des nonces en France: Capodiferro, Dandino et Guidiccione, 140. Saulnier 1971. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 891.1 (J: 1139; S: 891.1) – [1542], 1 July – La Chaise Dieu – François de Tournon to Marguerite – BnF F.fr. 2968, fol. 50; Clairambault 312, fol. 3. François, Correspondance du Cardinal François de Tournon, no. 348. Saulnier 1971. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: No. 896.1 (J: 895; S: 896.1) – [1542, c. 30 October? – Nérac] – Marguerite to Ercole d’Este, duke of Ferrara – Modena, Archivio di Stato, Lettere di principi esteri. Francia. Jourda, “Marguerite de Navarre, Lettres inédits,” no. 26, 126. Jourda, Répertoire, no. 895, 197–198. Saulnier 1974, A for change of number sequence. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 897.1 (S: 897.1) – [1542], 12 November – Nérac – Marguerite to the Parlement of Bordeaux – Mentioned in response, no. 897.2. Saulnier 1971. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 897.2 (S: 897.2) – [1542], 13 November – Bordeaux – The Parlement of Bordeaux to Marguerite de Navarre – AM Bordeaux, Coll. Verthamon, 18th c. MS copy. Registre secret du Parlement, vol. 3 (1770), 887. Lopez de Meneses, “Marguerite de Navarre et le Parlement de Bordeaux,” 38; same author signed Madalena Saez-Pomez, “Margarita de Angulema y Enrique de Albret en Burdeos,” 497. Saulnier 1971. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 897.3 (S: 897.3) – [1542, mid-November – Angoulême] – Henri de Valois, le dauphin, to Marguerite – Saulnier 1975 A, 363–375, provides an important essay on interest in the Psalms at court. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 10086 – [1542, before 15 November] – Marguerite to the Parlement of Bordeaux – Lost letter. Mentioned in Métivier Chronique du Parlement de Bordeaux 1, 370: “le 15 novembre 1542 lettres de la reine de Navarre au parlement, concernant l’eslargissement des prisonniers estants des subjets du roi de Navarre, estants en voie d’eslargissement, mesme d’un religieux augustin.” Given the date, this letter is not the same as no. 897.2. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 904.1 (S: 904.1) – [1542, end of December] – Francis I to Marguerite – Mention in Métivier, Chronique du Parlement de Bordeaux 1, 373. Saulnier 1972. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No.

to the correspondence of marguerite of navarre

627

10087 – [1543, before January] – The protonotary of Orthe to Marguerite – Lost letter. Mentioned in Jourda, Répertoire, no. 924. Near the date of Francis I’s forgiveness to the Rochellois. Letter or verbal communication. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 919.1 (S: 919.1) – [1543 beginning of the year] – Marguerite to René Brinon – Mention in AM Bordeaux, Coll. Verthamon, 18th c. MS copy, Registre secret du Parlement, vol. 3 (1770), 908–911. Lopez de Meneses, “Marguerite de Navarre et le Parlement de Bordeaux,” 39; same author signed Madalena Saez-Pomez, “Margarita de Angulema y Enrique de Albret en Burdeos,” 497. Métivier, Chronique du Parlement de Bordeaux 1, 373. Saulnier 1971 and 1972. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 919.2 (S: 919.2) – [1543 beginning of the year] – Marguerite to François Belcier – Saulnier 1971. See no. 919.1. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 919.3 (S: 919.3) – [1543 beginning of the year] – René Brinon to Marguerite – Saulnier 1971. See no. 919.1. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 919.4 (S: 919.4) – [1543, 5 January] – François de Belcier to Marguerite – Saulnier 1971. See no. 919.1. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 927.1 (S: 927.1) – [1543 c. February] – Cardinal Jean Du Bellay to Marguerite – Allusion in no. 933.1, Génin 2, no. 76, 126. Saulnier 1971. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 933.01 (J: 1017; cf. S: 933.1) – [1543, before March] – Cardinal Jean Du Bellay to Marguerite – Allusion in 933.1 (Jourda no. 1022). Saulnier 1971, assigned no. 1022 to [March, 1543], therefore no. 1017, to which no. 1022 alludes, must also be sometime before [March 1543], and should be assigned a related number, thus 933.01. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 933.1 (J: 1022; S: 933.1) – [1543, c. March] – Marguerite to Francis I – BnF F.fr. 6624, fol. 24. Génin 2, no. 76, 126. Saulnier 1971. Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Institut de France, Registre de Frotté, MS 1830, fol. 128, March 1543, mentions payment of Frère Seillenard [Salazar] for a mission to Spain. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: No. 935.1 (S: 935.1) – [1543, last days of March – Nérac?] – Marguerite to the Parlement of Bordeaux – Mention in AM Bordeaux, Coll. Verthamon, 18th c. MS copy, Registre secret du Parlement, vol. 3 (1770), 955. Lopez de Meneses, “Marguerite de Navarre et le Parlement de Bordeaux,” 39; same author signed Madalena Saez-Pomez, “Margarita de Angulema y Enrique de Albret en Burdeos,” 490 and 498. Saulnier 1971. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 10088 – [1543], 4 April – Marguerite to the Parlement of Bordeaux – Lost letter. Mentioned in Métivier, Chronique du Parlement de Bordeaux 1, 376. Same as 935.1? New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No.

628

appendix a – additions and corrections

938.1 (J: 917; S: 938.1) – [1543, weeks before 25 June] – Marguerite to Anne de Laval, madame de La Trémoïlle – Marchegay, Lettres missives, 146. Chartrier de Thouars, 72. Saulnier 1972. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 938.2 (S: 938.2) – [1543], 25 June – Marguerite to Anne de Laval, madame de La Trémoïlle – Archive de La Trémoïlle. Partial transcription, Marchegay, Lettres missives . . . tirées des archives . . . de La Trémoïlle, 146. Saulnier 1972. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 938.3 (J: 918; S: 938.3) – [1543, after 25 June] – Anne de Laval, madame de La Trémoïlle to Marguerite – Saulnier 1972. Allusion in the response, no. 938.4 [= 919]. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 938.4 (J: 919; S: 938.4) – [1543, end of June] – Marguerite to Anne de Laval, madame de La Trémoïlle – Chartrier de Thouars, 73. Saulnier 1972. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 941.1 (S: 941.1) – [1543, before 2 June] – Marguerite to Geoffroy de la Chassagne – Allusion in Lopez de Meneses, “Marguerite de Navarre et le Parlement de Bordeaux,” 39. Saulnier 1971. See no. 919.1. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 941.2 (S: 941.2) – [1543, before 2 June] – Marguerite to Geoffroy de Pompadour – Allusion in Lopez de Meneses, “Marguerite de Navarre et le Parlement de Bordeaux,” 39. Saulnier 1971. See no. 919.1. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 941.3 (S: 941.3) – [1543, June–July?] – John Fredrrick, elector of Saxony to Marguerite – Allusion in Métivier, Chronique du Parlement de Bordeaux 1, 390. Saulnier 1972. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 10089 – [1543, summer] – Philipp Melanchthon to Marguerite – Lost letter. Mentioned in Gaullieur, Histoire de la Réformation à Bordeaux 1, 71. Gaullieur relates that Melanchthon sent two letters, not one, to Marguerite. Cf. letters 941.3 and 1110 and Florimond de Raemond, L’histoire de la naissance, progrez, et decadence de l’hérésie (1623), 856. Gaullieur mentions two letters, not one, as having been sent by Melanchthon to Marguerite. Cf. letter 1110 and Florimond de Raemond, 856 [865], and Saulnier 1971 for discussion of 1110. If the probable dating of this letter holds up, then no. 1110 should also be re-dated to the summer of 1543. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 10090 – [1543, after 31 July] – Charles de Gramont to Marguerite – Lost letter. Implied in Métivier, Chronique du Parlement de Bordeaux 1, 390–391. Gramont informs Marguerite that the trial of André Melanchthon had been suspended. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 953.1 (S: 953.1) – [1543, 18 December] – Marguerite to the Parlement of Bordeaux – Cited in Lopez de Meneses, “Marguerite de Navarre et le Parlement de Bordeaux,” 40; same author signed Madalena Saez-Pomez, “Margarita

to the correspondence of marguerite of navarre

629

de Angulema y Enrique de Albret en Burdeos,” 498–499. Saulnier 1971and 1972. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 953.2 (S: 953.2) – [1543, end of the year] – Marguerite to Paul III – Allusion in a letter of Danadino, 4–5 December 1543, in Lestocquoy, Correspondance des nonces en France: Capodiferro, Dandino et Guidiccione, 295. Saulnier 1971. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 955.1 (S: 955.1) – [1543, end of year or beginning of 1544] – Philipp Melanchthon to Marguerite – Allusion in 24 March 1544, AM Bordeaux, Coll. Verthamon, 18th c. MS copy, Registre secret du Parlement, vol. 4 (1770), 178–188; and Dartigue, “Les séjours de Marguerite,” 278–285. Saulnier 1971 and Saulnier 1972. The Parlement alludes to two letters from Philipp Melanchthon. The first may be no. 942. This number stands for the second, which is not the same as no. 1110. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 956.1 (S: 956.1) – [1544, c.17 January – Mont-de-Marsan?] – Marguerite to M. de La Vaugyuon – Allusion in no. 956.2. Saulnier 1971. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 956.2 (S: 956.2) – [1544, 17 January – Mont-de-Marsan?] – Marguerite to Charles Chabot, baron de Jarnac – Cited in Saulnier 1970, pp. 100–102 from original that passed through the hands of the Librairie de l’Abbaye, see ibid., 106 and n. 44. Saulnier 1971 New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: No. 956.3 (S: 956.3) – [1544, c. 18 January] – Marguerite to the Parlement of Bordeaux – Allusion on 21 January 1544, AM Bordeaux, Coll. Verthamon, 18th c. MS copy, Registre secret du Parlement, vol. 4 (1770), 133; Lopez de Meneses, “Marguerite de Navarre et le Parlement de Bordeaux,” 44, same author signed Madalena Saez-Pomez, “Margarita de Angulema y Enrique de Albret en Burdeos,” 499, which dates the letter to 19 January. Saulnier 1971 New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 958 (J: 958; S: 958) – [1543, end of January – Mont-de-Marsan] – Marguerite to Francis I – BnF F.fr. 6624, fol. 118. Génin 2, no. 131, 226. Saulnier 1975 A, no. 958 and pp. 355–358. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 961.1 (S: 961.1) – [1544, 12 February – Mont-de-Marsan] – Marguerite to the Parlement of Bordeaux – Mention in Lopez de Meneses, “Marguerite de Navarre et le Parlement de Bordeaux,” 41. Saulnier 1971 and Saulnier 1972. Possibly the same as the letter presented to the parlement on 14 February 1544, see Métivier, Chronique du Parlement de Bordeaux 1, 405–406. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 961.2 (S: 961.2) – [1544, 21 February] – Bordeaux – The Parlement of Bordeaux to Marguerite – Mentioned in the parlement’s deliberations of 21 February 1544. See Métivier, Chronique du Parlement de Bordeaux 1, 406. Saulnier 1972. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No.

630

appendix a – additions and corrections

972 (J: 972; S: 972) – [1544, March] – Marguerite to Francis I – BnF F.fr. 6624, fol. 114. Génin 2, no. 90, 148. Saulnier 1972 for identity of “le sénéchal de Bazadois,” Jean de Montpezat. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 973 (J: 973; S: 973) – [1544, March – Dax] – Marguerite to Francis I – BnF F.fr. 6624, fol. 45. Génin 2, no. 92, 152. Saulnier 1972 for identity of “le sénéchal de Bazadois,” Jean de Montpezat. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 10091 – 1544, 4 March – Charles Chabot, baron de Jarnac to Marguerite – Cited in Thomas, ed. Documents officiels et Correspondances, Collection “Documents inédits” 1 (Pau: Société des Amis du Château de Pau, 1996), no. 13, 26–27. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 975.1 (S: 975.1) – [1544, end of March – near Bordeaux] – Marguerite to Geoffroy de Caumont, abbé d’Uzerche – Mentioned in 975.3. Saulnier 1971. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 975.2 (S: 975.2) – [1544, end of March – near Bordeaux] – Marguerite to François de Caumont – Mentioned in 975.3. Saulnier 1971. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 975.3 (S: 975.3) – [1544, end of March – near Bordeaux] – Marguerite to Charles Chabot, baron de Jarnac – Cited in Saulnier 1970, p. 107 from original that passed through the hands of the Librairie de l’Abbaye, see ibid., 106 and n. 44. Saulnier 1971. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: No. 975.4 (S: 975.4) – [1544, end of March – Bordeaux?] – Marguerite to Charles Chabot, baron de Jarnac – Cited in Saulnier 1970, p. 108 from original. Saulnier 1971. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 976.1 (S: 976.1) – [1544, before 2 April] – Marguerite to the Parlement of Bordeaux – Allusion in 2 April 1544, AM Bordeaux, Coll. Verthamon, 18th c. MS copy, Registre secret du Parlement, vol. 4 (1770), 193–194; Lopez de Meneses, “Marguerite de Navarre et le Parlement de Bordeaux,” 42. Saulnier 1971 and Saulnier 1972. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 976.2 (S: 976.2) – [1544, 6 April] – Paul III to Marguerite – Mentioned in Lestocquoy, Correspondance des nonces en France: Capodiferro, Dandino et Guidiccione, LVIII. Saulnier 1971. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 976.3 (S: 976.3) – [1544, c. 6 April – Saint-Maixent] – Marguerite to the City Council of La Rochelle – Allusion in no. 976.4. Saulnier 1971. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 976.4 (S: 976.4) – [1544], 6 April – Saint-Maixent – Marguerite to Charles Chabot, baron de Jarnac – Cited in Saulnier 1970, p. 109 from original that passed through the hands of the Librairie de l’Abbaye, see ibid., 106 and n. 44. Saulnier 1971. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: No.

to the correspondence of marguerite of navarre

631

978.1 (J: 1088; S: 978.1) – [1544], 2 May – Paris – Marguerite to Cardinal Jean Du Bellay – Hôtel Drouot, sale of 31 May 1949, Collection Whitney-Hoff, catalogue no. 93. Fiches Charavay –, Saulnier 1971. Though Saulnier did not note it, this record matches that in the Fichier Charavay. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: No. 10092 – [1544, April–May] – Paris – Étienne Dolet to Marguerite – Verse letter in Étienne Dolet, Le second Enfer (Lyon: Étienne Dolet, 1544), 116–118. Published in Longeon, Préfaces, 28. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 10093 – [1544, before 19 May] – François Sagon to Marguerite – Dedicatory epistle, François Sagon, Apologye en defense pour le Roy, fondée sur texte d’evangile, contres ses ennemys & caluminateurs (Paris: Denys Janot, 1544). New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: No. 10094 – [1544], 31 August – Lyon – Antoine Du Moulin [Maçon] to Marguerite – Antoine Du Moulin’s dedication “ce dernier jour d’aoust 1544” to Marguerite in Bonaventure Des Périers, Recueil des oeuvres de feu Bonaventure des Periers, ed. Antoine Du Moulin (Lyon: Jean de Tournes, 1544). Partially quoted in Bonaventure de Périers, Le Cymbalum mundi, ed. Yves Delègue (Paris: Honoré Champion, 1995), 114. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 983 (J: 983; S: 983) – [1544, c. 20–25 December] – Vittoria Colonna to Marguerite – Allusion in response, no. 984. Saulnier 1980 for date. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 984 (J: 984; S: 984) – [1545, c. 20–25 January] – Marguerite to Vittoria Colonna – “Quinternus Litterarum Marchionissae Piscariae,” Vatican City, Congregazione per la dottrina della fede, Stanza Storica E-2-e, fasc. 9, fol. 602–603r. Pagano, Nuovi documenti su Vittoria Colonna, 111–115; Fontana, “Nuovi Documenti Vaticani;” Colonna, Carteggio, no. CLXVII, 289–292; Collett, A Long and Troubled Pilgrimage, with text 128–129, translation 114–116, and analysis 107–108; Picot, Les français italianisants 1, 45–46. Saulnier 1980 for further references. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 985 (J: 985; S: 985) – [1545, c. 20–25 January] – Marguerite to Georges d’Armagnac – Mention in a letter of Georges d’Armagnac to Renée of France in BnF Clairambault 229, fol. 129; F.fr. 2991, fol. 59. Fontana “Nuovi documenti Vaticani intorno a Vittoria Colonna,” 624. Génin 1, 473. Saulnier 1980 for re-dating, which he argues makes 985 and 989 one and the same, thus cancel 989. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 989 (J: 989; S: 989) – See Saulnier 1980 for re-dating of 985, which makes it and 989 one and the same; thus cancel 989. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 10095 – [1545, beginning of March – Greenwich] – Paget or Henry VIII to Marguerite – Lost letter. Mentioned in Paget to Petre of same date in Letters and Papers 20, 1, no. 342, 155; see also no. 334, 151. Jourda no. 991 (cf. 992) only counts one, when there were two letters sent. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No.

632

appendix a – additions and corrections

10096 – [1545, before 10 March] – Marguerite to Paget or Henry VIII – Lost letter. Mentioned in Paget’s letter to Henry VIII of that date, Letters and Papers 20, pt. 1, no. 334, 151; see also no. 342, 155. Jourda no. 992 only counts one, when there were two letters sent. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 995.1 (S: 995.1) – [1545, end of April] – Paul III to Marguerite – Mention in a letter by the papal nuncio, Guidiccione, from Blois, 8 May 1545, Lestocquoy, Correspondance des nonces en France: Capodiferro, Dandino et Guidiccione, 353. Saulnier 1971. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 10097 – [1545?, c. 1 May? – Lyon?] – Antoine Du Moulin [Maçon] to Marguerite – Prefatory letter in Giovanni Boccaccio, Decameron (Lyon: Guillaume Rouillé, 1551). Date: Similar to Emilio Ferretti’s letter to Marguerite in the same volume, Lyon, 1 May 1545. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 10098 – 1545, 1 May – Lyon – Emilio Ferretti to Marguerite – Prefatory letter in Giovanni Boccaccio, Decameron (Lyon: Guillaume Rouillé, 1551). See Antoine Du Moulin’s letter in the same volume. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 10099 – 1545, 10 May – Vittoria Colonna to Marguerite – Vatican City, Congregazione per la dottrine della fede, Stanza Storica E-2-e, fasc. 9, fol. 606–607r. Collett, A Long and Troubled Pilgrimage, with text 130–131, translation 116–117, and analysis 108–109. Pagano, Nuovi documenti su Vittoria Colonna, 116–118. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 1000 (J: 1000; S: 1000) – [1545, mid-October] – Marguerite to Paul III – Vatican Archives, Brevia minuta, arm. 41, vol. 34, no. 661, Annales de St-Louis des Français (1904), 205. Saulnier 1971 for re-dating. 10100 – [1546] – François Rabelais to Marguerite – Dedicatory epistle to Le tiers livre, critical edition and commentary by M.A. Screech (Paris: Droz, 1995). New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 10101 – 1546, 24 August – Louis Enoch to Marguerite – Dedicatory Epistle, Louis Enoch, Prima infantia utriusque Linguae simul et Gallicae, per Lodovicum Enôchum Vxeludenensem, Nunc recens in lucem aedita (Paris: Jacques Bogard et Denis Christopher, 1546). Telle, “Un Document sur le mécénat de Marguerite d’Angoulême, reine de Navarre,” BHR 34 (1972), 279–281; Clive, Marguerite de Navarre: an Annotated Bibliography, E 100: “Louis Enoch dedicated his 1546 short Latin treatise on the elements of Latin, Greek, and French grammar to Marguerite.” New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: No. 1014.1 (S: 1014.1) – [1546, c. October – Mont-de-Marsan] – Marguerite to Paul III – Allusion in a letter of Paul III. See, Fontana, Renata di Francia 2, no. 34 of the “Documenti vaticani.” Saulnier 1974 A. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 1021 (J: 1021 and 1122) – [before 31 March 1547] – Marguerite to Francis I – BnF F.fr. 3021, fol. 58. Mentioned in Génin 1, 412, text in Génin 2, no.

to the correspondence of marguerite of navarre

633

144, 260–261 (with different closing). Jourda gives the same manuscript reference as for letters 1021 and 1122 but a different description of contents in each case. The texts in Génin match, thus cancel 1122. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 1035 (J: 1035 and 1076; S: 1035) – [1547, April–summer 1548] – Marguerite to Henry II – BnF F.fr. 3132, fol. 25. Génin 1, 427 and Génin 2, no. 151, 266. Saulnier 1974 A, based on Génin’s summary and then edition of the letter, Jourda counted it twice. Saulnier suggests date. Cancel 1076. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 1035.1 (S: 1035.1) – [1547, mid-April – Rome] – Cardinal Alessandro Farnese to Marguerite – Allusion in the response, no. 1036.1. Saulnier 1974 A. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 1036 (J: 1036; S: 1036) – [1547], 17 April – Rome – Paul III to Marguerite – Vatican Archives, Brevia minuta, arm. 41, vol. 34, no. 413. Text in Fontana, Renata di Francia 2, 501. Cf. Lestocquoy, Correspondance des nonces en France: Capodiferro, Dandino et Guidiccione, 194. Saulnier 1974 A. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 1036.1 (S: 1036.1) – [1547, April–May] – Marguerite to Cardinal Alessandro Farnese – Hôtel Drouot, Vente Robert Schuman, 2nd part, 24–25 June 1965, catalogue no. 178. Saulnier 1974 A. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: No. 1041 (J: 1041; S: 1041) – [1547, c. 31 May – Tusson] – Marguerite to Aimée de La Fayette, baillive de Caen – Allusion in no. 1040. Saulnier 1974 A notes. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 1043.1 (J: 1043bis; S: 1043.1) – [1547, beginning of June] – M. de La Bénestaie to Marguerite – Allusion in the response, no. 1047. Saulnier 1974 A, notes and revised number for consistency. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 1047 (J: 1047; S: 1047) – [1547], 18 June – Tusson – Marguerite to Guillaume d’Izernay – BnF F.fr. 3638, fol. 65. Ritter, no. 37, 35. Génin 1, 411 mention. Saulnier 1974 A notes. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 1050 (J: 1050; S: 1050) – [1547, July?] – Jean de Bourbon, vicomte de Lavedan to Marguerite – Allusion in no. 1056.1. Saulnier 1974 A. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 1050.1 (S: 1050.1) – [1547, July – Tusson] – Marguerite to Guillaume d’Izernay – Allusion in no. 1056. Saulnier 1974 A. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 1053 (J: 1053; S: 1053) – [1547, 22 July] – Guillaume d’Izernay to Marguerite – Allusion in 1056. Saulnier 1974 A notes. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 1054 (J: 1054; S: 1054) – [1547, 24 July] – Guillaume d’Izernay to Marguerite – Allusion in 1056. Saulnier 1974 A notes. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 1054.1 (J: 1052; S: 1054.1) – [1547, c. 1 August] – Marguerite to Henry II – BnF Dupuy 569, fol. 11. Génin 1, no. 155, 387. Saulnier 1974 A. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes.

634

appendix a – additions and corrections

1056.1 (J: 1055; S: 1056.1) – [1547, beginning of August] – Marguerite to Anne de Montmorency – BnF F.fr. 3024, fol. 21. Génin 1, no. 156, 388. Saulnier 1974 A. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 1057 (J: 1057; S: 1057) – [1547], 20 August – Rome – Paul III to Marguerite – Fontana, Renata di Francia 3, 381. Saulnier 1974 A. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 1058 (J: 1058; S: 1058) – [1547], 24 August – Rome – Cardinal Alessandro Farnese to Marguerite – Naples, Archivio di Stato, Carte farnesiane, 700 and 727. Samaran et Patry, “Marguerite de Navarre et le Pape Paul III,” 322 n. Saulnier 1974 A. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: No. 1059.1 (J:1102?; S: 1059.1) – [1547], 10 October – Marguerite to Guillaume d’Izernay – Saulnier 1974 A: “D’après une hypothèse de Ritter, il faudrait placer ici la lettre 1102.” See 1102. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 1063.1 (J: 954; S: 1063.1) – [1547, end of year] – Marguerite to Guillaume d’Izernay – Allusion in 1063.4 (Jourda no. 956). Saulnier 1974 A. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 1063.2 (J: 955; S: 1063.2) – [1547, end of December] – Guillaume d’Izernay to Marguerite – Allusion in 1063.4 (Jourda no. 956). Saulnier 1974 A. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 1063.3 (S: 1063.3) – 1547, 24 December – Marguerite to Henry II – BnF F.fr. 20521, fol. 100 (Gaignières 409, fol. 100). La Ferrière-Percy, Livre de dépenses, 113–114; 114 n. 1, “Cette lettre est inédite et avait échappé aux recherches de M. Génin.” Saulnier 1974 A. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: No. 1063.4 (J: 956; S: 1063.4) – [1548?], 8 January – Pau – Marguerite to Guillaume d’Izernay – BnF F.fr. 3638, fol. 69. Jourda, “Marguerite de Navarre, Lettres inédits,” no. 29, 125–126. Jourda, Répertoire, 212–213. Saulnier 1974 A, for new date and notes. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 1063.5 (J: 1066; S: 1063.5) – [1547, 10 January – Fontainebleau] – Guillaume d’Izernay to Marguerite – Mentioned in response, no. 1063.6 (Jourda no. 1067). Saulnier 1974 A. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 1063.6 (J: 1067; S: 1063.6) – [1547, end of January – Pau] – Marguerite to Guillaume d’Izernay – BnF F.fr. 3638, fol. 67. Génin 1, no. 158, 390. Saulnier 1974 A. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 1067.1 (J: 1064; S: 1067.1) – [1548, February] – Mont-de-Marsan – Marguerite to Henry II – BnF F.fr. 3132, fol. 15. Génin 1, no. 161, 396. Saulnier 1974 A. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 1068 (J: 1068; S: 1068) – [1548], 2 May – Pau – Marguerite to Honorat de Savoie, comte de Villars – BnF F.fr. 3050, fol. 57. Génin 1, no. 158, 390. Saulnier 1974 A for date and notes. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes.

to the correspondence of marguerite of navarre

635

1068.1 (J: 1121; S: 1068.1) – [1548, 11–15 May – Pau] – Marguerite to Anne de Polignac, madame de La Rochefoucault – BnF F.fr. 3081, fol. 2. Génin 1, no. 55, 222. Saulnier 1974 A. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 1068.2 (S: 1068.2) – [1548, c. 20 May – near Brienne (Aube)] – Anne Montmorency to Marguerite – Allusion in no. 1069.3 (Jourda no. 722). Saulnier 1974 A. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 1069 (J: 1069; S: 1069) – [1548], 31 May – Rome – Paul III to Marguerite – Text in Fontana, Renata di Francia 3, 381. Saulnier 1974 A. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 1069.1 (J: 1140; S: 1069.1) – [1548, mid-June – Prouille] – Marguerite to François de Tournon – Allusion in no. 1069.2 (Jourda no. 1141). Saulnier 1974 A. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 1069.2 (J: 1141; S: 1069.2) – [1548], 25 June – Saint-Pouçain (Allier) – François de Tournon to Marguerite – BnF F.fr. 3081, fol. 9. Correspondance du Cardinal François de Tournon, 246. Saulnier 1974 A. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 1069.3 (J: 722; S: 1069.3) – [1548, end of June – Prouille] – Marguerite to Honorat de Savoie, comte de Villars – BnF F.fr. 3043, fol. 4. Génin 1, 430. Saulnier 1975 A, with full transcription. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 1069.4 (J: 1070; S: 1069.4) – [1548, beginning of August] – Marguerite to Diane de Poitiers – Allusion in a letter of Diane de Poitiers, Lettres inédites, Guiffrey, 28–29. Saulnier 1975 A, with correction of addressee and date. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 1069.5 (J: 617; S: 1069.5) – [1548, after 5 August] – Marguerite to François de Tournon – Mentioned in response no. 1069.6 (Jourda no. 618). Saulnier 1974 A. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 1069.6 (J: 618; S: 1069.6) – [1548, c. 10–15 August] – François de Tournon to Marguerite – BnF F.fr. 3081, fol. 7. Correspondance du Cardinal François de Tournon, 247. Saulnier 1974 A. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 1071.1 (S: 1071.1) – [1548, after 20 October – Bordeaux] – Anne de Montmorency to Marguerite – Allusion in a letter of Charles de Lorraine to Anne de Montmorency, October 1548, Ruble, Antoine de Bourbon et Jeanne d’Albret 1, 9; Gigon, La révolte de la gabelle en Guyenne, 1906, 166; Lettres du Cardinal Charles de Lorraine, ed. Cuisiat. Saulnier 1971. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 1071.11 (J: 1078; S: 1071.11) – [1549], 20 March – Pau – Marguerite to Guillaume d’Izernay – BnF F.fr. 3638, fol. 73. Ritter, no. 40; mention Génin 1, 411. Saulnier 1974 A. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 1071.12 (J: 1077; S: 1071.12) – [1549, c. 20 March – near Pau] – Marguerite to Henry II – Allusion in 1071.11. Saulnier 1974 A. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No.

636

appendix a – additions and corrections

1071.13 (J: 1080; S: 1071.13) – [1549, c. 20 March – near Pau] – Marguerite to Diane de Poitiers – Allusion in 1071.11. Saulnier 1974 A. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 1071.14 (J: 1082; S: 1071.14) – [1549, c. 20 March – near Pau] – Marguerite to Cardinal Jean de Lorraine – Allusion in 1071.11. Saulnier 1974 A. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 1071.15 (J: 1081; S: 1071.15) – [1549, c. 20 March – near Pau] – Marguerite to Jacques d’Albon de Saint-André – Allusion in 1071.11. Saulnier 1974 A. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 1071.16 (S: 1071.16) – [1549, c. 20 March – near Pau] – Marguerite to Chancellor François Olivier – Allusion in 1071.11. Saulnier 1974 A. New: Yes. Extant: No. Edited: No. 1071.17 (J: 1079; S: 1071.17) – [1549, c. 20 March – near Pau] – Marguerite to Anne de Montmorency – Allusion in 1071.11. Saulnier 1974 A. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 1071.18 (J: 1083; S: 1071.18) – [1549, c. 20 March – near Pau] – Marguerite to Jean Bertrandi, president of the Parlement of Toulouse – Allusion in 1071.11. Saulnier 1974 A. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 1071.2 (S: 1071.2) – 1549, 1 April – Marguerite of Navarre signed receipt – Acknowledging reception of 6,000 l.t. from royal fisc. Collection Alfred Bovet, no. 2032. Saulnier 1971. New: Yes. Extant: Yes. Edited: No. 1072 (J: 1072; S: 1072) – [1549, 15–17 April] – Marguerite to Anne de Polignac, madame de La Rochefoucault – BnF F.fr. 2972, fol. 3. Jourda, “Marguerite de Navarre, Lettres inédits,” no. 34, 130–131. Jourda, Répertoire, 240. Saulnier 1974 A. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 1072.1 (S: 1072.1) – [1549, c. 21 April] – Marguerite to Mlle de Malestroit, demoiselle de Pontcallec – Allusion in no. 1073. Saulnier 1974 A. New: Yes. Extant: Yes? Edited: No. 1072.2 (S: 1072.2) – [1549, c. 21 April] – Marguerite to Louis V de RohanGuéméné – Allusion in no. 1073. Saulnier 1974 A. New: Yes. Extant: Yes? Edited: No. 1073 (J: 1073; S: 1073) – [1549], 22 April – Pau – Marguerite to Anne de Polignac, madame de La Rochefoucault – BnF F.fr. 3081, fol. 1. Génin 1, no. 160, 394. Saulnier 1974 A. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 1073.1 (J: 1038; S: 1073.1) – [1549, April–June] – Guillaume d’Izernay to Marguerite – Mentioned in no. 1073.5 (Jourda no. 1046). Saulnier 1974 A. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 1073.2 (J: 1038; S: 1073.2) – [1549, April–June] – Guillaume d’Izernay to Marguerite – Mentioned in no. 1073.5 (Jourda no. 1046). Saulnier 1974 A. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No.

to the correspondence of marguerite of navarre

637

1073.3 (J: 1038; S: 1073.3) – [1549, April–June] – Guillaume d’Izernay to Marguerite – Mentioned in no. 1073.5 (Jourda no. 1046). Saulnier 1974 A. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 1073.4 (J: 1038bis; S: 1073.4) – [1549, May-June] – Diane de Poitiers to Marguerite – Mentioned in no. 1073.5 (Jourda no. 1046). Saulnier 1974 A. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 1073.5 (J: 1046; S: 1073.5) – [1549], 27 June – Pau – Marguerite to Guillaume d’Izernay – BnF F.fr. 3035, fol. 80; Clairambault 313, fol. 356. Génin 1, no. 153, 383 [not p. 183, no. 353 as per Jourda]. Saulnier 1974 A, with revised day of month. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 1073.6 (J: 1044; S: 1073.6) – [1549, c. 27 June – Pau] – Marguerite to Diane de Poitiers – Mentioned in no. 1073.5 (Jourda no. 1046). Saulnier 1974 A. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 1073.7 (J: 1045; S: 1073.7) – [1549, 27 June – Pau] – Marguerite to Jean Bertrandi – Mentioned in no. 1073.5 (Jourda no. 1046). Saulnier 1974 A. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 1073.8 (J: 1045bis; S: 1073.8) – [1549, 27 June – Pau] – Marguerite to Marguerite de France – Mentioned in no. 1073.5 (Jourda no. 1046). Saulnier 1974 A and 1975 A. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 1075 (J: 1075; S: 1075) – Saulnier 1974 A: same as 1034, cancel 1075. See its companion letter, no. 1035 [1076]. 1099 – See at [1538?]. 1102 (J: 1102; S: 1102) – 10 October – Bagnères[-de-Bigorre] – Marguerite to Guillaume d’Izernay – BnF F.fr. 3010, fol. 18. Génin 1, 427. Ritter, Les solitudes de Marguerite de Navarre, 134 and 206. Saulnier 1974 A, with text. Saulnier does not accept Ritter’s suggestion of a date sometime between 1543 and 1547, but nevertheless gives an alternate entry number for this letter, 1059.1. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: Yes. 1109 – See at [1529], 12 December. 1110 – See as [1533, c. 22 July]. 1130 (J: 1130) – n.d. – Champollion-Figeac, Poésies de François Ier, 198–199, nos. 16–23. Jourda, Répertoire, nos. 1130–1137, incorrectly states that the eight verse-letters addressed by Francis I are to Marguerite. He numbers these without date, 1130–1137. Only Champollion-Figeac nos. 16 and 20 are definitely described as being from Francis to Marguerite. Moreover, the volume contains many other verse missives from Marguerite’s correspondence with Francis, which need to be checked against her known letters as well as her literary oeuvre before they can be assigned a serial number and tentative date. Until, then let 1130 stand as a placeholder for all of these and cancel nos. 1131–1137. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No.

638

appendix a – additions and corrections

1131 (J: 1131) – Cancel, see 1130. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 1132 (J: 1132) – Cancel, see 1130. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 1133 (J: 1133) – Cancel, see 1130. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 1134 (J: 1134) – Cancel, see 1130. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 1135 (J: 1135) – Cancel, see 1130. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 1136 (J: 1136) – Cancel, see 1130. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 1137 (J: 1137) – Cancel, see 1130. New: No. Extant: No. Edited: No. 1143 (J: 1143) – 14 February – X to Marguerite – BnF Clairambault 313, fol. 76. Date as per MS. New: No. Extant: Yes. Edited: No. Index: Changes to Letter Numbers Jourda

Saulnier

Appendix A

16bis 17 17bis 21 23 26 27 29 30 31 36 37 43 44 45 46 53 67 68 = 242 75 76 77 78

16.3 16.1 16.4 22.1 24.1 27.1 27.1 27.2 32.2 32.1 36.1 36.1 20.4 68.1 68.2 68.3 54.1 239.2 239.1 75.1 = 85 78.1 78.2

16.3 16.1 16.4 22.1 24.1 27.1 27.1 27.2 32.2 32.1 36.1 36.1 20.4 68.1 68.2 68.3 54.1 239.2 239.1 75.1 85 78.1 78.2

to the correspondence of marguerite of navarre (Table cont.) Jourda

Saulnier

Appendix A

79 80 95 = 147 98 bis 139 212 213 224 225 229 230 231 242 256 274 294 302 369 370 374 429

75.2 81.1

75.2 81.1 Cancel 95 98.1 10011 Cancel 206.1 334.1 334.2 234.1 220.1 227.1 239.1 250.1 279 310.1 313.1 118.1 118.2 357.1 Cancel 560.2 584.1 584.3 584.5 584.6 1069.5 1069.6 646.2 1069.3 226.1 819.01 98.1 820.1 Cancel 856.1 858.1 896.1 938.1 938.3 938.4 1063.1 1063.2 1063.4

561 562 617 618 646 722 776 98bis 823 835 869 875 895 917 918 919 954 955 956

Cancel 206.1 334.1 334.2 234.1 220.1 227.1 239.1 250.1 279 310.1 313.1 118.1 118.2 560bis-1 584.1 584.3 584.4 584.4 1069.5 1069.6 646.2 1069.3 226.1 819.1[bis] 820.1 856.1 858.1 896.1 938.1 938.3 938.4 1063.1 1063.2 1063.4

639

640

appendix a – additions and corrections

(Table cont.) Jourda

Saulnier

Appendix A

989 1015 1017 1022 1038 1038 1038 1038bis 1043bis 1044 1045 1045bis 1046 1052 1055 1064 1066 1067 1070 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1088 1100 1102 1119 1121 1122 1131–1137 1138 1139 1140 1141

985 818.01

985 818.01 933.01 933.1 1073.1 1073.2 1073.3 1073.4 1043.1 1073.6 1073.7 1073.8 1073.5 1054.1 1056.1 1067.1 1063.5 1063.6 1069.4 Cancel 1035 1071.12 1071.11 1071.17 1071.13 1071.15 1071.14 1071.18 978.1 646.1 1102 585.3 1068.1 1021 Cancel 243.1 891.1 1069.1 1069.2

933.1 1073.1 1073.2 1073.3 1073.4 1043.1 1073.6 1073.7 1073.8 1073.5 1054.1 1056.1 1067.1 1063.5 1063.6 1069.4 Cancel 1035 1071.12 1071.11 1071.17 1071.13 1071.15 1071.14 1071.18 978.1 646.1 1059.1/1102 585.3 1068.1 243.1 891.1 1069.1 1069.2

APPENDIX B

BOOKS RELATED TO THE NAVARRIAN NETWORK

Part I of this appendix contains a bibliography of some 850 editions of French and Latin books that either Navarrian Network members produced or others wrote in debate with them. These works constitute a considerable proportion of the religious works published in France by mid-century. This list has been complied by consulting the bibliographical studies listed in the third section of this work’s bibliography as well as the holdings of major research libraries in France, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America. Though certainly incomplete, this inventory reflects the major contours of the Navarrian Network’s public campaign via print to promote its evangelical agenda.1 Its immediate purpose is to serve as a reference for the discussion of the development of evangelical literature in the body of this work. Which books have been included and why? The core of the bibliography centers on some 560 editions, most of which were written, edited, or printed by known members of the Navarrian Network. Some treatises figure in the list because they are closely connected in origin or by theme with the works assuredly signed or produced by network members. ‘Damned by association’ (which is exactly how sixteenth-century censors located and why they condemned such books), most of these books were first published by the network members’ favorite printers, such as Simon Du Bois, Antoine Augereau, or Étienne Dolet. However, no book has merited entry based on its printer alone. In content, all of the works selected exhibit some evangelical or reformist orientation. As is argued in chapter 10, though not all works written by evangelicals were religious in the strict sense of the word, most contain admixtures of religious themes. Thus, in addition to catechisms and religious tracts, most of the writings of evangelical literary figures like Clément Marot have been incorporated, not just their translations of the Psalms or overtly devotional poetry. The same

1 The monumental first complete survey of sixteenth-century books printed in French by Andrew Pettegree, Malcolm Walsby, and Alexander Wilkinson, French Vernacular Books: Books published in the French Language before 1601 / Livres vernaculaires français: Livres imprimés en français avant 1601, 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 2007) appeared after the author completed research for this study. Having been very fortunate to work for a time for the editors on this survey of French books, he profited from intermediate findings. He anticipates that a further cycle of inquiry with it in hand will add to the core of evangelical literature established here both further reprint editions of known works as well as a moderate number of new titles, some of them exciting discoveries for understanding the semi-clandestine world of the evangelical press in France.

642

appendix b

inclusionary principle has been applied to a large group of less well-known literary figures connected with Marot and Marguerite. A further 290 titles fill out the list; roughly half are by Catholic opponents (160) and half by Protestant rivals (130) of the network. Only those works that were in dialogue with those of French evangelicals have been included. The contribution of Catholic and Protestant authors to the Reformation debate in France via print was obviously much more extensive and varied than indicated below. Further research is needed to establish what proportion of the book market hard-line Catholics, staunch Protestants, and French evangelicals controlled, the change in this balance over time, and, moreover, the impact of all such literature in forming the religious outlook of France’s sixteen million people.2 What books are missing in the bibliography that might belong? For the sake of space, not all the reprints of works by certain major evangelical authors are listed below, though they certainly count as part of the large corpus of evangelical literature we are trying to describe. For instance, only the first editions and some significant reprints of Rabelais’s works are included: enough to frame his contribution, which is listed in full in Higman (see below). The same selection criteria apply to the literary oeuvre of Clément Marot, who was by far the most popular French vernacular writer of the era. His many works appeared in over 250 editions during the first half of the century. For these, consult C. A. Mayer’s bibliography. The entries are ordered by year and within each year by author, then title. Further information on and studies of most of these books can be found in the bibliographies mentioned above as well as the notes of the present study. Alexandre Cioranesco’s Bibliographie de la littérature française du seizième siècle provides the most comprehensive, if dated, listing of texts and studies of works by French authors. For exemplars and additional reprint editions of French works listed here, see Andrew Pettegree’s French Vernacular Books. Of the works listed below some 450 also appear in Francis Higman’s magisterial bibliographic survey of religious books in the French language, Piety and the People 1511–1551 (160 French works and the 240 Latin ones do not). In each case, Higman’s letter-number reference, e.g., B 69, is indicated at the far right of the entry in order to facilitate consultation of his indispensable notes, references to scholarship, and citation of exemplars. Preceding part I is a working list of authors, editors, illustrators, and translators who were part of Marguerite’s network or whose works were published by its members. Part II of this appendix lists manuscripts composed by network members from circa 1520–1550, many of which never made it to print and are not extant, but are clearly attested in the sources. These are discussed throughout the course of this study. Here again, the scores of extant manuscripts of the

2 See Higman’s programmatic introduction to Piety and the People: Religious Printing in French 1511–1551 for answers to these questions based on his survey of the vernacular literature in circulation.

books related to the navarrian network

643

works of Marot and Marguerite are not listed and may be found in the bibliographies of C. A. Mayer and H. P. Clive. Part III enumerates works read or sought by members of the network in 1524. These are discussed in chapter 7. Authors, Editors, Illustrators, and Translators Published by the Navarrian Network Agrippa von Nettesheim, Heinrich Cornelius Ailly, Pierre d’ Alciato, Andrea Ambroise, St. Ammonius of Alexandria Andier, Paul Aneau, Barthélemy Arande, Michel d’ Aretino, Pietro Aristotle Athanasius, St. Augustine, St. Aurigny, Gilles d’ Badet, Arnaud de Baduel, Claude Barril, Jean Beaulieu, Eustorg de Benedetto da Mantova Bernard, St. Berquin, Louis de Bizet, Tristan de Bodius, Hermann [Martin Bucer?] Boethius Bouchet, Jean Bourbon, Nicolas Boyssoné, Jean de Brenz, Johannes Briçonnet, Denis Briçonnet, Guillaume Brie, Germain de (Brixius) Brodeau, Victor Brunfels, Otto Bucer, Martin Budé, Guillaume Bugenhagen, Johannes Campen, Jan van Caracciolo, Antonio

Caroli, Pierre Castiglione, Baldessare Caviceo, Giacomo Chansonnette, Claude Chaperon, Jean Chappuys, François Chrysostom, St. John Clichtove, Josse Coct, Anémond de Colet, Claude Colin, Germain Colin, Jacques Cordier, Mathurin Corrozet, Gilles Courtecuisse, Jean Cretin, Guillaume Cyprian, St. Dassy, François Denisot, Nicolas Dentière, Marie Des Périers, Bonaventure Dolet, Étienne Du Bellay, Guillaume Du Bellay, Jean Du Moulin, Antoine Dumolin, Guillaume Erasmus, Desiderius Eskrich, Pierre Espence, Claude d’ Estienne, Robert Eusebius of Caesarea Farel, Guillaume Flaminio, Marcantonio Fontaine, Charles Fossetier, Julien Gaigny, Jean de Gerson, Jean Glotelet, Nicole

644

appendix b

Greban, Simon Gregoire, Jehan Gringore, Pierre Gueroult, Guillaume Héroët, Antoine Heyden, Gaspar (Sebald) van der Holbein, Hans Huet, Charles (La Huiterie) Hugues de Saint-Cher Hutten, Ulrich von Jerome, St. Jordan, Raymond Karlstadt, Andreas Bodenstein von La Borderie, Bertrand de La Coudraie, François de Lambert, François Landry, François Le Maistre, Claude Le Sueur, Nicolas Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques Liège, Jean Lille, Pierre de Lucian of Samostata Luther, Marin Macault, Antoine Marguerite de Navarre Marot, Clément Mazurier, Martial Meigret, Aimé Melanchthon, Philipp Morand, Jean More, Thomas Musaeus Nachtigall, Ottomarus Nesen, Wilhelm Olivétan, Pierre Robert Oraison, Antoine d’ Ovid Papillon, Almanque Papillon, Antoine Pasquier, Estienne Petrarch, Frencesco

Plato Pocquet, Antoine Poictevin, Jean Prato, Felix de [Pratensis] Prosper of Aquitaine, St. Rabelais, François Rhegius, Urbanus Ronsard, Pierre de Roussel, Gérard Rozel, Charles Rufinus of Aquileia Sadoleto, Jacopo Sainte-Marthe, Charles de Saint-Gelais, Mellin de Salel, Hugues Saliat, Pierre Salmon, Jean (Macrin) Salomon, Jean (Florimond) Saulnier, Antoine Saulnier, Matthieu Scève, Maurice Schuch, Wolfgang Sébiville, Pierre de Seneca, Pseudo- (Lucius Annaeus) Seymour, Anne, Jane, and Margaret Seyssel, Claude de Sleidan, Johannes Sturm, Johann Theodoret of Cyrus Thiboust, Jacques Thomas à Kempis Tomeo, Nicolò Leonico Ulrich of Würtemberg Valla, Giorgio Valla, Lorenzo Vallambert, Simon Vauzelles, Jean de Vienne, Philibert de Visagier, Jean Vitrier, Jean Zwingli, Ulrich

books related to the navarrian network

645

I. A Checklist of Books Related to the Navarrian Network 1509 Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques (tr.). Quincuplex Psalterium: Gallicum, Romanum, Hebraicum, Vetus, Conciliatum. Paris: Henri Estienne, 31 July 1509. 2° 1512 Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques. Epistola ad Rhomanos. Epistola prima ad Corinthios . . . Epistola ad Hebraeos. Ad has 14 adiecta intelligentia ex Graeco: Epistola ad Laodicenses. Epistolae ad Senecam sex. Commentariorum libri. Paris: Henri Estienne, 15 December 1512. 2° 1513 Clichtove, Josse. De laude monasticae religionis opusculum. Paris: Henri Estienne, 1513. 4° Clichtove, Josse. De puritate conceptionis beatae Mariae Virginis libri duo: de dolore eiusdem sacrae Virginis in passione filii sui liber unus; de eiusdem iuxta crucem filii sui statione homelia; de asumptione ipsius gloriosae Virginis liber unus. Paris: Henri Estienne, 1513. Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques (tr.). Quincuplex Psalterium: Gallicum, Romanum, Hebraicum, Vetus, Conciliatum. Paris: Henri Estienne, 13 June 1513. 2° Salmon, Jean (Macrin). Jo. Salmonii Materni Lodunatis Elegiarum triumphalium Liber. Paris: Gilles de Gourmont, [c. 1513]. 4° 1514 Salmon, Jean (Macrin). Io. S. M. de Christi superbenedicti assertoris nostri morte ‘ephodion:’ Cui additur elegia de poetices abusu. Item duo hymni de Virgine dei genitrice. Paris: s.n., [c. 1514]. 4° 1515 Gerson, Jean. Hugues de Saint-Cher. Briçonnet, Denis (ed.). I 40 L’instruction des curez pour instruire le simple peuple . . . par tout l’evesche de Sainct Malo [et Statuta nuperrime edita]. Paris: Olivier Senant, [after 31 May 1515]. 4°

646

appendix b

Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques. Contenta. Epistola ad Rhomanos . . . In hac secunda emissione obiter relegendo commentarios: castigata sunt nonnulla: aut quia depravata, aut quia minus placebant, subtracta etiam nonnulla aut immutata. Paris: Henri Estienne, 1515. 2° Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques (tr.). Quincuplex Psalterium: Gallicum, Romanum, Hebraicum, Vetus, Conciliatum. Rouen: Pierre Olivier for Michel Angier, 15 May 1515. 2° Salmon, Jean (Macrin). Io. Salmonii Macrini elegia de Christi super benedicti assertoris nostri morte. Item Virginis intemeratae hymni aliquot diligentius recogniti. Paris: s.n., 1515. 4° 1516 Clichtove, Josse. Elucidatorium ecclesiasticum ad officium Ecclesiae pertinentia planius exponens et quatuor libros. Paris: Henri Estienne, 1516. 2° 1517 Baston pour chasser les loups. Le Baston pour chasser les loups. [Lyon: s.n., 1517–1522]. Clichtove, Josse. De laudibus Sancti Ludovici regis Franciae. De laudibus sacratissimae virginis et martyris Ceciliae. Paris: Henri Estienne, 1517. 8° Clichtove, Josse. Elucidatorium ecclesiasticum ad officium Ecclesiae pertinentia planius exponens et quatuor libros. Basel: Johann Froben, 1517. 2° Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques. Commentarii in Pauli epistolas. Paris: Regnault, 1517. 2° 1518 Ceva, Bonifazio da. Sermones prenatalicii, sive de adventu. S.l.n., 30 July 1518. Clichtove, Josse. De dignitate et excellentia annunciationis beatae Mariae. De benignitate et gratia visitationis eiusdem gloriosae virginis. Paris: Henri Estienne, 1518. 4° [Erasmus, Desiderius]. Julius exclusus. [Paris: Jean de Gourmont, c. 1518]. [Erasmus, Desiderius]. Julius exclusus. [Paris: Jean de Gourmont, c. 1518]. Gerson, Jean. Briçonnet, Denis (ed.). I 42 Linstruction des curez pour instruire le simple peuple . . . par tout l’evesche de Sainct Malo. Nantes: Jean Baudouin, 10 April 1518. 4°

books related to the navarrian network

647

Grandval, Marc de. Apologiae seu defensorii Ecclesiae catholice non tres sive duas Magdalenas sed unicam celebrantis et colentis tutamentum et anchora, per ipsius auctorem apologiae Marcum de Grandval. Paris: Josse Bade, 1518. 4° [Hutten, Ulrich von]. Nemo [Ontis]. [Paris: Jean de Gourmont, c. 1518]. 4° Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques. De Maria Magdalena et triduo Christi disceptatio, ad clarissimum virum D. Franciscum Molineum, Christianissimi Francorum Regis Francisci Primi magistrum. Paris: Henri Estienne, 1518 n.s. 4° Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques. De Maria Magdalena, triduo Christi, et ex tribus Maria disceptatio: ad clarissimum virum D. Franciscum Molinum, Christianissimi Francorum Regis Francisci Primi magistrum. Secunda emissio. Paris: Henri Estienne, [before 22 July] 1518. 4° Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques. Iacobi Fabri Stapulensis, de Maria Magdalena et triduo Christi, disceptatio, concionatoribus verbi Divini ad prime utilis. Hagenau: Thomas Anselm Badensis, December 1518. 4° Missale insignis ecclesie Meldensis [Meaux]. Missale insignis ecclesie Meldensis. Paris: Henri Estienne, 1518. 1519 Beda, Noël. Scholastica declaratio sententiae et ritus ecclesiae de unica Magdalena . . . contra magistrorum Jacobi Fabri et Iudoci Clichtovei contheologi scripta. Paris: Josse Bade, 18 December [1519]. 4° Clichtove, Josse. Disceptationis Jacobi Fabri de Magdalena defensi, Apologiae Marci Grandivallis illam improbare nitentis ex adverso respondens. Paris: Henri Estienne, 1519. Clichtove, Josse. Elucidatorium ecclesiasticum ad officium Ecclesiae pertinentia planius exponens et quatuor libros. Basel: s.n., 1519. [Erasmus, Desiderius]. Julius: Dialogus viri cuiuspiam eruditissimi, festivus sane ac elegans, quomodo Julius II P.M. post mortem coeli fores ab ianitore illo D. Petro, intromitti nequiuerit: quamquam dum viveret sanctissimi, atque adeo sanctitatis nomine appellatus. [Strasbourg: Johann Pruss, 1519]. 8° Fisher, John. De unica Magdalena libri tres. Paris: Josse Bade, 1519.

648

appendix b

Jordan, Raymond. Briçonnet, Guillaume (tr.). J 11 Les contemplations faicte à l’honneur et louenge de la très-sacrée Vierge Marie. [Paris: Simon de Colines], 14 August 1519. 8° Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques. Agones martyrum mensis ianuarii libro primo contenti. [Paris: Henri Estienne, c. 1519]. 2° Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques. De Maria Magdalena, triduo Christi, et una ex tribus Maria, disceptatio: ad clarissimum virum D. Franciscum Molinum, Christianissimi Francorum Regis Francisci Primi magistrum. Tertia emissio. Paris: Henri Estienne, 1519. 4° Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques. De Tribus et unica Madgalena disceptatio secunda: ad reverendum in Chrsito Patrem D. Dionysium Briconnetum Episcopum Maclouiensem apud Leonem X. Pontificem Max. Christianissimi Francorum Regis Francisci I oratorem. Paris: Henri Estienne, 1519. 4° Lopez de Zuñiga, Didacus (Jacques Lopez Zuñiga). Annotationes contra Jacobum Fabrum Stapulensem. Alcala: Arnauld-Guillaume de Grocario, 1519. Nesen, Wilhelm. Dialogus bilinguium ac trilinguium. Paris: Conrad Resch, 1519. 1520 Beda, Noël. Apologia pro filiabus et nepotibus beatae Annae, per Natalem Bedam, contra magistri Iacobi Fabri scriptum. Paris: Josse Bade, [15–26] February 1520. 4° Beda, Noël. Restitutio duarum propositionum necessitatem peccati Adae, et felicitatem culpae eiusdem indicantium a sacra caerei Paschalis benedictione, solertia Iodoci Clichtovei . . . relegatarum, . . . damnationem ac subtractionem mutilatae. Paris: Josse Bade, 5 August 1520. 4° Briçonnet, Guillaume. Sermo Synodalis R. in Christo patris D. Guillermi Meldensis Episcopi, habitus Meldis, anno 1519, die 13 Octobris. Paris: Henri Estienne, 1520. Clichtove, Josse. De necessitatae peccati Adae et foelicitate culpae eiusdem apologetica disceptatio. Paris: s.n., 1520. Clichtove, Josse. De vita et moribus sacerdotum opusculum. Paris: Simon de Colines, 1520. 4° Eck, Johannes. Contra Martini Ludder obtusum propugnatorem Andream Rodolphi Bodenstein Carlstadium non potentem capere quomodo aliquid sit totum a Deo et non totaliter, Eckii ad eruditum virum Gervasium Vaim Memingensem. [Paris: Pierre Vidoue, 1520]. 4°

books related to the navarrian network

649

Erasmus, Desiderius. Halewijn, Joris van (Georges d’) (tr.). E 26 De la declamation de louenges de follie, stille facessieux et profitable pour congnoistre les erreurs et abuz du monde. Paris: Pierre Vidoue for Galliot Du Pré, 2 August 1520. 4° Nesen, Wilhelm. Epistola de magistris nostris Lovaniensibus, quot et quales sint, quibus debemus magistralem illam damnationem Lutherianam [et sequitur vita sancti Nicolai sive stultitiae exemplar]. [Schlettstadt: Lazarus Schürer, 1520]. 4° 1521 Boethius. Roussel, Gérard (comm.). Divi Severini Boetii arithmetica duobus discreta libris edente. Paris: Simon de Colines, 11 July 1521. 2° Clichtove, Josse. Secunda emissio: Elucidatorium ecclesiasticum ad officium Ecclesiae pertinentia planius exponens et quatuor libros complectens. Paris: Simon de Colines and Henri Estienne, 30 April 1521. 2° Determinatio secunda almae faculatatis Parisiensis. Determinatio secunda almae facultatis Parisiensis. S.l.n., [before 1 August 1521]. Détermination de Luther. “La Détermination de Luther.” [Paris?]: s.n., [before 31 August 1521]. Epistolae Luciferi. Epistolae Luciferi: Isthec ipistola fuit a paucis diebus casu rep[er]ta . . . hanc ad verbum fideliter describi curavi nihil omittens dictorum luciferi. [Paris: Jean de Gourmont, 1521?]. 4° Faculty of Theology, Paris. Clichtove, Josse. Determinatio theologicae Facultatis Parisiensis super doctrina Lutheriana per eam visa (15 apr. 1521, auctore J. Clichtoveo). Paris: Josse Bade, [c. 1521]. Heures de Meaux. Heures nouvellement imprimees à l’usaige de Meaulx au long avec plusieurs belles Histoires. Paris: Jean de Brie [Simon Du Bois?, 1521?]. 8° Lille, Pierre de. Apologia Heremitarum Petri Dellila, [s.l.n., c. December 1521]. Litanea Germanorum. Litanea Germanorum. Paris: Pierre Vidoue, [1521]. Melanchthon, Philipp. Adversus furiosum parisiensis theologastrorum decretum, Philippi Melanchthonis pro Luthero apologia. [Basel: Adam Petri, 1521]. 4° Nesen, Wilhelm. Epistola de magistris nostris Lovaniensibus . . . quibus debemus . . . illam damnationem Lutherianam [et Sequitur Vita sancti Nicolai sive stultitiae exemplar]. [Paris: Michel Lesclencher, c. 1521]. 4°

650

appendix b

1522 Aristotle. Roussel, Gérard, (tr.). Valla, Giorgio (comm). In hoc libro contenta: Opus magnorum moralium Aristotelis, duos libros complectens. Girardo Ruffo Vaccariensi interprete; altera eiusdem operis . . . et Gerogium Vallam Placentinus iampridem elaborata et breviusculis annotationibus explicata. Paris: Simon de Colines, 20 September 1522. Augustine, Saint. A 30, B 7 Le Mirouer des vanitez et pompes du monde. Paris: [Pierre Vidoue] for Galliot Du Pré, [1522?]. 4° Baston pour chasser les loups. B2 Le Baston pour chasser les loups. [Geneva: Jaques Vivian, 1522?]. 4° Briçonnet, Guillaume. Alter Sermo Synodalis R. . . . in Christo patris D. Guillermi, Meldensis Ministri, habitus Meldis, anno 1520, Mense Octobri. Paris: Simon de Colines, 1522. Faculty of Theology, Paris. “Determination on the Mary Magdalene debate 9 November 1521.” S.l.n., 1522. Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques. Commentarii Initiatorii in Quatuor Evangelia. In evangelium secundum Matthaeum. In evangelium secundum Marcum. In evangelium secundum Lucam. In evangelium secundum Ioannem. Meaux: Simon de Colines, June 1522. 2° [Karlstadt (Carlstadt), Andreas Bodenstein von. “Pastor Combergensis”]. Contra papisticas leges sacerdotibus prohibentes matrimonium Apologia pastoris Combergensis qui nuper suae eccclesiae consensu uxorem duxit. [Paris: Jean de Gourmont, before 21 March 1522]. Karlstadt (Carlstadt), Andreas Bodenstein von. De celibatu et viduitate, auctore Andrea Carlestadio. S.l.n., [before 21 March 1522]. Lopez de Zuñiga, Didacus (Jacques Lopez Zuñiga). Annotationes Jacobi Lopidis Stunicae contra D. Erasmu[m] . . . in defensionem tralationis novi testamenti. Apologia D. Erasmi in Jacobum Lopidem Stunicam. Ejusdem Stunice annotationes in Jacobum Fabrum super epistolas Pauli. Paris: Pierre Vidoue and Conrad Resch, 1522. 2° Lorsque Luther print la relligion. “Lorsque Luther print la relligion.” S.l.n., 12 December 1522. Oecolampadius, Johannes. Quod expediat Epistolae et Evangelii lectionem in Missa vernaculo sermone plebi promulgari. [Augsburg: S. Grimm and M. Wirsung], 1522. 4° Oecolampadius, Johannes. Quod expediat epistolae et evangelii lectionem in Missa, vernaculo sermone plebi promulgari. Oecolampadii ad Hedionem Epistola. Legat, expendat, quisquis sacra complectitur: Est, quod pectus vere Christianum delectet. [Strasbourg: Ulrich Morhart, 1522]. 8°

books related to the navarrian network

651

1523 Bible. N.T. Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques (tr.). B 152 Les choses contenues en ce present livre. Une epistre exhortatoire. La S. Evangile selon S. Matthieu. La S. Evangile selon S. Marc. La S. Evangile selon S. Luc. La S. Evangile selon S. Jehan. Aucunes annotations. Paris: Simon de Colines, 8 June 1523. 8° Campester, Lambert [Deschamps, Lambert]. L. Campestri Theologi Apologia in Martinum Lutherum Haereseos Acephalorum, ac Sacrilegorum antesignanum: qua strictim huiusce factionis loci insigniores expenduntur, qui subiudiciuntur. Paris: Simon de Colines, [1523]. 4° Campester, Lambert [Deschamps, Lambert]. L. Campestri Theologi Heptacolon in summam scripturae sacrilegiae Martini Lutheri in Apologia eius contentam. Prodeunt tibi Candidi lector hac foetur Heptacolon Summae Lutherianae. Dicealogia rationum Heptacoli. Apologia in capita rerum Lutheri. Paris: Simon de Colines, [after 11 August] 1523. 4° Clichtove, Josse. De bello et pace opusculum, Christianos principes ad sedandos bellorum tumultus et pacem componendam exhortans . . . J. Clichtovei. Paris: Simon Colines, 3 August 1523. 8° Clichtove, Josse. De veneratione sanctorum, opusculum duos libros complectens. Primus, honorandos esse ab ecclesia sanctos: et sedulo a nobis orandos, ostendit. Secundus, rationes eorum: qui contendunt non esse venerandos, nec orandos a nobis sanctos, dissoluit. Paris: Simon de Colines, 3 September 1523. 4° Cousturier [Sutor], Pierre. Fratris Petri Sutoris, . . . de Triplici connubio divae Annae disceptatio. Paris: Jean Petit, 1523. 4° Faculty of Theology, Paris. Determinatio Facultatis theolgiae Parisiensis super aliquibus propositionibus certis e locis nuper ad eam delatis, de veneratione sanctorum, de canone missae deque sustentatione ministrorum altaris et caeteris quibusdam. Paris: Jean Petit (Pierre Vidoue), [c. 2 Dec. 1523]. 4° Fisher, John. Assertionis Lutherane confutatio. Paris: Claude Chevallon, 22 August 1523. 4° Hangest, Jérôme de. Antitologia Hieronymi Hangesti, Philosophiae, ac sacrae Theologia professoris. [Paris]: Pierre Vidoue for Jean Petit, 27 August 1523. 4° Henry VIII. Assertio septem sacramentorum adversus Martinum Lutherum. Paris: Claude Chevallon, [c. 1523]. 4° Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques. Commentarii initiatorii in quatuor Evangelia. In evangelium secundum Matthaeum. In evangelium secundum Marcum. In evangelium secundum Lucam. In evangelium secundum Ioannem. Basel: Andreas Cratander, March 1523. 2°

652

appendix b

Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques. Uber die wortt Christi. Mat. xvi. Ir kindt urtailen die gestalt des himels, aber die zeichen der zeit mügt ir nit erkennen. Ain erklerung Jacobi Fabri Scapulensis, darinn anngezegt und probiert wirt, das der recht Messias kommen sei. [Augsburg: Melchior Ramminger], 1523. 4° Netter, Thomas [Waldensis, Thomas]. Roch, Jean, (ed.). Sacramenta Thome Walden sextum videlicet volumen doctrinalis antiquitatum fidei Ecclesiae catholicae contra Witclevistas et eorum asseclas Lutheranos. Paris: Francois Regnault, 24 December 1523. 2° Spagnuoli, Battista. Mortières [Molières], Jacques de (tr.). S 32 La parthenice Mariane de Baptiste Mantuan poete theologue de l’ordre de nostre dame des carmes translatee de latin en francois. Lyon: Claude Nourry and Jean Besson, 22 October 1523. 4° Ten Commandments and Creed. “Commandements des Hébreux et des chétiens, le Symbole de Nicea.” [Paris?]: s.n., [before 22 August 1523]. Placard. Wollick, Nicolaus [Volcyr de Sérouville, Nicolas]. Du Maine, Jean Glapion. V 68 Collectaneorum Libellus. Le petit Recueil du Poligraphe instructif: et moral: faict en latin et françois sur les elementz des lettres: commandemens de la loi: oraison dominicale: et sermon des cendres, pour deux jeunes princes de renom. [Paris: Didier Maheu, 2–3 August 1523?]. 4° 1524 Bible. O.T. Psalms. Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques (tr.). B 71 Les choses contenues en ce present livre: une epistre comment on doibt prier Dieu, le psaultier de David, pour trouver les sept psaulmes accoustumez, qui a devotion de les dire. Arguement brief sur chascun pseaulme pour Chrestiennement prier. Paris: Simon de Colines, 16 February 1524 n.s. 8° Bible. N.T. Epistles. Clichtove, Josse (ed.). Si sancitatem si temperantiam si modestiam si prudentiam si castam beatamque vitam ducere cupis, si tandem ad regnum celorum pervenire optas, Pauli apostoli Petri et Joannis Jacobi et Jude Epistolas legito. Paris: [Antoine Aussourd] for Jean Petit, 1524. 8° Bible. N.T. Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques (tr.). B 154 Les choses contenues en ce present livre. La S. Evangile selon S. Matthieu, Marc, Luc, Jehan. [II]: Epistres, Actes, Apocalypse. [Paris: Antoine Couteau], 12 October 1524. 8° Bible. N.T. Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques (tr.). B 155 Les choses contenues en ce present livre. La S. Evangile selon S. Matthieu, Marc, Luc, Jehan. [II]: Epistres, Actes, Apocalypse. Paris: [Antoine Couteau] for Simon de Colines, 12 October 1524. 8° Bible. N.T. Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques (tr.). B 156 Les choses contenues en ce present livre. La S. Evangile selon S. Matthieu, Marc, Luc, Jehan. [II]: Epistres, Actes, Apocalypse. Antwerp: Guillaume Vorsterman, 22 November 1524–4 January 1525. 8°

books related to the navarrian network

653

Chrysostom, St. John. Oecolampadius, Johannes (tr.). Divi Joannis Chrysostomi . . . in totum Geneseos librum homiliae sexagintasex a Joanne Oecolampadio hoc anno versae. Paris: Jean Petit, July 1524. Chrysostom, St. John. Oecolampadius, Johannes (tr.). Bérault, Nicolas (ed.). Divi Joannis Chrysostomi Psegmata quedam nuperrime a Joanne Oecolampaido in Latinum versa. Paris: Jean Petit, September 1524. Clichtove, Josse. Antilutherus Iudoci Clichtovei Neoportuensis Doctoris Theologi, tres libros complectens. Paris: Simon de Colines, 13 October 1524. 2° Coct, Anémond de. Luther, Martin. Zwingli, Ulrich. In hoc libello contenta. Annemundi Cocti Equitis Galli ad lectorem Epistola. Christianissimi doctoris Martini Lutheri ad illustrissimum principem Carolum Sabaudiae ducem Epistola. Huldrici Zuinglii Tigurini Episcopi vigilantissimi ad Petrum Sebivillam. [Zurich: Christoph Froschauer], February [1524]. 4° Erasmus, Desiderius. Exomolgesis sive modus confitendi. Basel: Johann Froben, 1524. Erasmus, Desiderius. Chansonnette, Claude (tr.). E 36 Maniere de se confesser. Basel: [Andreas Cratander], 26 Feburary 1524. 8° Erasmus, Desiderius. “Paraphrases d’Erasme sur les évangiles de Luc et de Marc.” [Paris]: s.n., [1524]. Faculty of Theology, Paris. Propositio contra Lutherum et sequaces eius. Paris: Josse Bade, Regnault Chaudiere, 25 August [1524]. Farel, Guillaume. Gullielmus Farellus christianis lectoribus. [Basel: Andreas Cratander], February 1524. 2° [Farel, Guillaume]. Determinatio Facultatis Theologie Parisiensis, super aliquibus propositionibus, certis e locis nuper ad eam delatis, de veneratione sanctorum, de canone missae deque sustentatione ministrorum altaris, et ceteris quibusdam, cum familiari expositione in qua Hereticorum rationes confutantur. [Basel: Andreas Cratander, March] 1524. [Farel, Guillaume. Luther, Martin]. F 24 Le Pater noster, et le Credo en françois, avec une tresbelle, et tresutile exposition, et declaration sur chascun faicte en forme de contemplation et oraison fort proufitable pour enflamber le cueur. [Basel: Andreas Cratander, beginning August] 1524. 8° Gacy, Jean. G2 Trialogue nouveau contenant l’expression des erreurs de Martin Luther. Les doleances de Ierarchie ecclesiastique. Et les triumphes de verite invincible. [Geneva: Wigand Koeln], 1524. 4° Gringore, Pierre. G 38 Le Blazon des heretiques. Paris: Philippe Le Noir, 21 December 1524. 4°

654

appendix b

Gringore, Pierre. G 39 Le Blazon des heretiques. Saint-Nicolas-du-Port: Jérôme Jacobi, 1524. Lambert, François. Commentariorum Francisci Lamberti Avenionensi Theologi de Sacro Coniugio, et adversus pollutissimum Regni perditionis caelibatum, Liber, in LXIX Positiones divisus, quibus quicquid ad Matrimonium spectat, complexus est. Strasbourg: Johann Herwagen, May 1524. Lambert, François. In Cantica canticorum Salomonis, libellum quidem sensibus altiss. in quo sublimia sacri Coniugii mysteria, quae in Christo et Ecclesia sunt, pertractantur, Francisci Lamb. Auenionensis Comentarii, Wittembergae praelecti. Strasbourg: [Johann Herwagen, August] 1524. Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques. Psalterium David, Argumentis fronti cuiuslibet psalmi adiectis, Hebraica et Chaldaica multis in locis tralatione illustratum. Paris: [Simon de Colines, before 1 May 1524]. Longueil, Christophe de. Christofori Longolii orationes duae pro defensione sua in crimen lesae maiestatis, longe exactiori quam ante judicio perscriptae, ac nunc primum ex ipsius authoris sententiae in lucem editae. Oratio una ad Luterianos. Florence: Heritors of Philippus Junta, 1524. 8° Longueil, Christophe de. Christophori Longolii Orationes duae pro defensione sua in crimen lesae maiestatis . . . Oratio una ad Luterianos. Ejusdem Epistolarum libri quatuor. Epistolarum Bembi et Sadoleti liber unus. Florence: Heritors of Philippus Junta, 1524. 4° Lutzenburg, Bernard. Catalogus haereticorum: aeditio tertia . . . mox aucta. Paris: Jean Petit (for Pierre Vidoue), 13 July 1524. 4° Martin Luther. Coct, Anémond de. Lambert, François. Christianissimi Doc. Martini Luther, et Annemundi Cocti Equitis Galli, pro sequentibus commentariis Epistolae. Evangelici in Minoritarum Regulam Commentarii, quibus, palam fit, quid tam de illa, quam de aliis Monachorum Regulis et constitutionibus. [Strasbourg: Johann Knobloch, March–April 1524]. 8° Meigret, Aimé. M 58 Epistre en Latin de maistre Aimé Meigret Théologien, à messeigneurs du Parlement de Grenoble. Plus un Sermon en Francois presché à Grenoble par l’edicte Meigret le jour sainct Marc Evangeliste, l’an de grace mil cinq cens vingtquatre. S.l.n., [1524?]. 16° Sébiville, Pierre de. Abiuratio heresis, Lutheriane facta per fratrem Petrum de Sibiville, religiosum ordinis minorum. Et sententia diffinitiva contra eum lata in curia spirituali sedis episcopalis Gracianopolis. S.l.n., [1524].

books related to the navarrian network

655

Tortura Fidei a Lutherianis. Tortura et crux Fidei a Lutherianis sub Germani [Passio Fidei christiane secundum Lutherum]. Paris: [Pierre Chupin, c. 1524]. 4° 1525 Ballade des leutheriens. La Balade des Lutheriens. S.l.n., 1525. Ballade des leutheriens avec la chanson. B1 La Balade des leutheriens avec la chanson. [Lyon: Jacques Moderne, 1525?]. 8° Beda, Noël. Warnet, Thomas. B8 La doctrine et instruction necessaire aux chrestiens et crestiennes. Paris: Alain Lotrian, [1525?]. 8° Bible. O.T. Psalms. Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques (tr.). B 72 Le psaultier de David. Arguement brief sur chascun pseaulme. Antwerp: Martin Lempereur, 20 June 1525. 8° Bible. O.T. Psalms. Ailly, Pierre d’ (comm.). [Caroli, Pierre (tr?)]. B 73 Les sept pseaulmes du royal prophete David, exposees: puis nagueres divulguees, pour donner a tous maniere de se retirer du peche et se convertir a Dieu: et de prier devotement, selon la maniere que a enseigne le sainct esperit par David en ses sept pseaulmes. [Paris: Simon Du Bois, 1525?]. 8° Bible. N.T. Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques (tr.). B 153 Les choses contenues en ce present livre. La S. Evangile selon S. Matthieu, Marc, Luc, Jehan. [II]: Epistres, Actes, Apocalypse. Paris: Simon de Colines, 12 April 1525. 8° Bible. N.T. Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques (tr.). B 157 Les choses contenues en ceste partie du nouveau testament. Basel: [Andreas Cratander for Johann Schabler], 1525. 8° Bible. N.T. Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques (tr.). B 158 Les choses contenues en ce present Livre. La S. Evangile selon S. Mathieu, Marc, Luc, Jehan. [II]: Epistres, Actes, Apocalypse. Paris: Simon Du Bois, 6–19 October 1525. 8° Bible. N.T. Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques (tr.). B 159 Le nouveau testament contenant ce qui est declare en la page subsequente. “Turin” [Lyons?]: “Francois Cavillon” [Claude Nourry or Francois Carcan?, 1525?]. 16° Chrysostom, St. John. “Homélies en françois.” [Meaux or Paris?: Simon de Colines?, before August 1525]. Clichtove, Josse. Antilutherus Iudoci Clichtovei Neoportuensis Doctoris Theologi, tres libros complectens. Cologne: Petrus Quentell, 1525. 8° Clichtove, Josse. De veneratione sanctorum, opusculum duos libros complectens. Primus, honorandos esse ab ecclesia sanctos: et sedulo a nobis orandos, ostendit. Secundus, rationes eorum: qui contendunt non esse venerandos, nec orandos a nobis sanctos, dissoluit. Cologne: Petrus Quentell, 1525.

656

appendix b

Cousturier [Sutor], Pierre. De tralatione Bibliae et novarum reprobatione interpretationum. Paris: Jean Petit, Pierre Vidoue, 28 February 1525. 2° Epistolae Luciferi. Epistolae Luciferi. Isthec ipistola fuit a paucis diebus casu reperta . . . hanc ad verbum fideliter describi curavi nihil omittens dictorum luciferi. [Antwerp?]: s.n., [1525?]. 4° Erasmus, Desiderius. [Berquin, Louis de (tr.). Farel, Guillaume]. E 15 Brefve admonition de la maniere de prier: selon la doctrine de Jesuchrist. Avec une brefve explanation du Pater noster. Extrait des paraphrases de Erasme sur sainct Matthieu et sur sainct Luc. [Paris: Simon Du Bois, after 1 May 1525]. 8° Erasmus, Desiderius. [Berquin, Louis de (tr.)]. E 27 Declamation des louenges de mariage. [Paris: Simon Du Bois, after 1 May 1525]. 8° Erasmus, Desiderius. E 35 Exhortation au peuple. Achevez de lire: et puis juges. [Antwerp: Martin Lempereur, 1525?]. 8° Erasmus, Desiderius. [Berquin, Louis de (tr.)]. E 57 Le symbole des apostres (qu’on dict vulgairement le Credo) contenant les articles de la foi: par maniere de dialogue: par demande et par response. La pluspart extraict d’ung traicte de Erasme de Roterdam intitule “Devises familieres.” [Paris: Simon Du Bois, after 1 May 1525]. 8° Exhortation sur ces sainctes parolles de nostre seigneur Jesus. E 71 Exhortation sur ces sainctes parolles de nostre segneur [sic] Jesus “Retournes vous, et croyes à l’evangile” prinse sur la saincte escripture, en laquelle est declaire l’efficace de l’evangile, c’est le grand bien qu’il en advient à l’homme. [Basel: Andreas Cratander, 1525?]. 4° [Farel, Guillaume?]. F8 Epistre Chrestiene tresutile à ceulx qui commencent lire la saincte parolle de Dieu, ilz soient edifiez, congnoissant la consummation de toute l’escripture. [Paris: Simon Du Bois, 1525?]. 8° [Farel, Guillaume. Luther, Martin. Et al.]. F 25 L’oraison de Jesuchrist, qui est le Pater noster, et le Credo, avec la declaration d’iceulx. La saluation angelique. Les dix commandemens. Les sept pseaulmes: et autres choses tresutiles. [Paris: Simon de Colines, 1525?]. 16° [Farel, Guillaume. Luther, Martin]. Le Pater noster, et le Credo en francoys, auec vne tres belle, et tres utile exposition, et declaration sur chascun faicte en forme de contemplation et orayson fort prouffitable pour enflamber le cueur et les perit en lamour de Dieu. S.l.n.d., [after 1524, before 17 March 1536]. 8° Hangest, Jérôme de. Hieronymus Hangestus, . . . de Libero arbitrio in Lutherum. Paris: Josse Badius for Jean Petit, [after 1525]. 4°

books related to the navarrian network

657

Illyricus, Thomas. Wollick, Nicolaus [Volcyr de Sérouville, Nicolas] (tr.). I3 Le Sermon de Charité, avec les probations des erreurs de Luther. Paris: s.n., 1525. Illyricus, Thomas. Wollick, Nicolaus [Volcyr de Sérouville, Nicolas] (tr.). I4 Le Sermon de Charité, avec les probations des erreurs de Luther. Saint-Nicolasdu-Port: Jérôme Jacobi, 1525. 4° [Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques. Et al.]. L 19 Les choses contenues en ce present livre. Epistres et Evangiles pour les cinquante et deux sepmaines de l’an: commenceans au premier dimenche de Laduent . . . Apres chascune epistre et evangile briefue exhortation selon l’intelligence d’icelle. [Paris: Simon Du Bois, 1525]. 8° [Luther, Martin]. L 81 Brief racueil des oeuvres des dix commandemens. [Antwerp: Martin Lempereur, 1525?]. 8° [Luther, Martin]. L 85 Declaration d’aucuns motz desquelz use souvent sainct Pol en ses epistres. [In Farel, L’oraison de Jesuchrist, 1525]. [Luther, Martin]. L 86 Des bonnes oeuvres sus les commandemens de Dieu. [Antwerp: Martin Lempereur, 1525?]. 8° [Luther, Martin]. L 91 Exposition sur les dix commandemens de la loi. [Paris: Simon de Colines, 1525?]. 16° [Luther, Martin. Lambert, François (tr?)]. L 113 Livre tresutile de la vraie et parfaite subjection des chrestiens, et ensemble de la sacrée franchise et liberté qu’ilz ont en Saint-Esperit. [Strasbourg: Johann Schott for Wolfgang Köpfel, before July 1525]. 4° [Luther, Martin]. L 117 La Maniere de mediter et penser à la passion de nostre sauveur Jesuchrist. [In Farel, L’oraison de Jesuchrist, 1525]. Luther, Martin. L 88 Une exposition sur le Magnificat. [Paris: Simon de Colines?, 1525?]. 8° [Luther, Martin]. L 89 Une exposition sur le Magnificat. [Paris: Simon Du Bois, 1525]. 8° Mauburne, Jean. I.D.C.V. [Jodicus de Clichotovus Villonovanus] (tr.). M 46 Ci commence ung petit traicte bien devot contenant premierement une petite eschelle pour faire bonne et entiere confession, contenant apres plusieurs eschelles de communion pour bien recepvoir sacramentellement et spirtuellement le sacrement de l’autel. Paris: [Guillaume de Bossozel] for Pierre Ricouart, 3 May [1525?]. 4° [Melanchthon, Philipp]. R 38 Brief recueil de la substance et principal fondement de la doctrine Evangelique. [Paris: Simon Du Bois, c. September 1525]. 8°

658

appendix b

Petit livre de la loy et de l’Evangile avec la force d’iceux. L 67 Petit livre de la loi et de l’evangile, de l’effect et force des deux, et de la difference diceulx. Responses à quinze obiections de predestination. [Paris: Simon de Colines, 1525?]. 8° Testament de Martin Luther. Le testament de Martin leuter auec ses disciples. S.l.n., [before September 1525]. 8° Zwingli, Ulrich. De vera et falsa religione commentarius. Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, April 1525. 8° 1526 Agrippa von Nettesheim, Heinrich Cornelius. Brefve declamation du sainct sacrement de mariage: compose en latin per Henricum Cornelium Agrippam et par lui traduit en vulgaire francois. [Lyon]: “Le Prince” [Claude Nourry], 1526. 8° Ammonius of Alexandria. Nachtigall, Ottomarus (tr.). Vauzelles, Jean de (tr.). N1 Histoire evangelique des quatres evangelistes un ung, fidelement abregee, recitant par ordre sans obmettre ni adouster Les notables faictz de nostre seigneur Jesuchrist. Lyon: Gilbert de Villiers, 1526. 8° Beda, Noël. Annotationum Natalis Bedae doctoris theologii Parisiensis in Jacobum Fabrum Stapulensem Libri duo. Et in Desiderium Erasmum Roterodamum liber unus. Paris: Josse Bade, 25 May 1526. 4° Beda, Noël. Annotationum Natalis Bedae doctoris theologii Parisiensis in Jacobum Fabrum Stapulensem Libri duo. Et in Desiderium Erasmum Roterodamum liber unus. Primus, in commentarios ipsius Fabri super Epistolas beati Pauli. Secundus, in eiusdem commentarios. Cologne: Petrus Quentell, 1526. 4° Bible. O.T. Psalms. Ailly, Pierre d’ (comm.). [Caroli, Pierre (tr?)]. Les sept pseaulmes du royal prophete David, exposees: puis nagueres divulguees. Paris: Jerome Denis, [after 1525]. 8° Bible. O.T. Psalms. Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques (tr.). B 74 Les choses contenues en ce present livre. Une epistre comment on doibt prier Dieu. Une table pour facilement trouver les pseaulmes. Le psaultier de David. Arguement brief sur chascun pseaulme. Paris: Simon de Colines, 17 February 1526. 8° Bouchet, Jean. Sensuit le Labyrinht [sic] de fortune et Seiour des trois nobles dames. Paris: Philippe Le Noir, c. 1526. 4° Clichtove, Josse. De sacramento Eucharistiae contra Oecolampadium opusculum. Paris: Simon de Colines, 1526. 4°

books related to the navarrian network

659

Clichtove, Josse. Propugnaculum Ecclesiae adversus Lutheranos per Judocum Clichtoveum neoportuensem, doctorem theologum, elaboratum et tres libros continens. Paris: Simon de Colines, 18 May 1526. 2° Clichtove, Josse. Propugnaculum Ecclesiae adversus Lutheranos, per Judocum Clichtoveum neoportuensem, doctorem theologum, elaboratum et tres libros continens: primus ritum antiquum celebrande misse . . . defendit . . . secundus sacerdotum continentiam celibatumque approbat. Cologne: Petrus Quentell, August 1526. 8° Clichtove, Josse. Propugnaculum Ecclesiae adversus Lutheranos per Judocum Clichtoveum neoportuensem, doctorem theologum, elaboratum et tres libros continens. Cologne: “In aedibus Hieronis Alopecii” for Gottfried Hittorp, 26 September 1526. 8° Corbelin, Taurin [Taurino Corbelino]. De Felici sacrilegae haereseos lutheranae occasu apud Luteciam Parisiorum, praesertim praeclarissimum omnigenarum literarum emporium. S.l.n., 1526. 8° Cousturier [Sutor], Pierre. Apologeticum in novos Anticomaritas praeclaris beatissime virginis Mariae laudibus detrahentes. Paris: Jean Petit, 1526. 4° Erasmus, Desiderius. Hyperaspistes, diatribae adversus servum arbitrium Martini Lutheri, par D. Erasmum. Paris: Pierre Vidoue, 1526. 8° [Heyden, Gaspar van der. Luther, Martin]. H 12 D’ung seul mediateur entre Dieu et les hommes, Jesuchrist . . . Ung sermon de mammone iniquitatis, c’est à dire des richesses d’iniquite. [Paris: Simon Du Bois, 1526?]. 8° [Luther, Martin]. L 121 Ung sermon de mammone iniquitatis. [In Heyden, D’ung seul mediateur entre Dieu et les hommes, 1526]. Misocacus, civis Utopiensis. Misocacvs civis vtopiensis Philaletis ex sorore nepotis, Dialogi tres. Apud Utopiae avrotum in aedibus Philagathi bibliopolae diligentissimi. Sapiente Orbe. [Paris: Pierre Vidoue, 1526?]. 4° Parlement of Paris. A 19 Les Arrestz et ordonnances de la court contre Luther, les lutheriens et leurs liures et aultres liures deffendus publiez a Paris. [Paris]: s.n., [c. 1526]. 4° Petit, Guillaume. P 13 Le viat de salut trenecessaire et utile à tous chrestiens pour parvenir à la gloire eternelle . . . [Petit] commanda . . . A tous curez, chappelains, vicaires, et maistre descolle Avoir ce present Livre. Pour le lire ou faire lire au Prosne. Troyes: Jean Le Coq, [1526?]. 8° Schuch, Wolfgang. [Lambert, François?]. S8 Epistre chrestienne envoyee à tresnoble Prince monseigneur le duc de Lorayne. [Strasbourg: Johann Pruss, Jr. and Johann Knobloch, Sen., 1526?]. 8°

660

appendix b

Traité du souverain bien. T 15 La Traicté du souverain bien, par lequel le vrai chrestien pourra apprendre (a l’aide des sainctes Escriptures) à contemner la Mort: mesmes icelle desirer, pour avoir claire vision de Dieu, par nostre seigneur Jesuchrist. [Paris: Simon Du Bois, 1526?]. 8° Wollick, Nicolas [Volcyr de Sérouville, Nicolas]. V 69 Lhistoire et Recueil de la triumphante et glorieuse victoire obtenue contre les seduictz et abusez Lutheriens mescreans du pais Daulsays et autres, par treshault et trespuissant prince et seigneur Anthoine par la grace de Dieu duc de Calabre. [Paris: Galliot Du Pré and Didier Maheu], 12 January [1526?]. 2° 1527 Pseudo-Augustine. Divi Aurelii Augustini Hipponensis Episcopi De Contemptu mundi ad clericos Libellus, nihil esse eis in terra possidendum demonstrans. Plaude, sacerdotum exploditur philargyria. s.n.l., [c. 1527?]. 4° [Berquin, Louis de?]. B 22 La Farce des theologastres à six personnages. [Lyon: Jean Cantarel and Vve. Barnabé Chaussard, 1527? 1523–25]. 4° Bodius, Hermann [Bucer, Martin?]. B 209 L’Union de toutes discordes: qui est ung livre tres utile à tous amateurs de paix et de verite: extraict des principaulx docteurs de l’eglise chrestienne: par le venerable docteur Herman Bodium. [Antwerp]: Martin Lempereur, 1527. 8° Brenz, Johannes. Hiob cum piis et eruditis Johannis Brentii commentariis, ad Hebraicam veritatem ita translatus, ut nulla porro obscuritas Lectorem poßit offendere. Hagenau: Johannes Secerius, 1527. 8° [Caviceo, Giacomo]. Dassy, François (tr.). Dialogue treselegant intitule le Peregrin, traictant de l’honneste et pudicq amour concilie par pure et sincere vertu, traduict de vulgaire italien. Paris: Nicolas Couteau for Galliot Du Pré, 25 May 1527. 4° Clichtove, Josse. De sacramento Eucharistiae contra Oecolampadium opusculum. Cologne: Petrus Quentell, 1527. 8° Clichtove, Josse. De veneratione sanctorum, opusculum duos libros complectens. Primus, honorandos esse ab ecclesia sanctos: et sedulo a nobis orandos, ostendit. Secundus, rationes eorum: qui contendunt non esse venerandos, nec orandos a nobis sanctos, dissoluit. Cologne: Petrus Quentell, 1527. Conrard, Olivier. C 130 Le mirouer des pecheurs. Paris: François Regnault and Galliot Du Pré, [1527?]. 8° Cretin, Guillaume. Chantz royaulx, oraisons et autres petitz traitez faitz et composez par feu de bonne memoire Maistre Guillaume Cretin en son vivant chantre de la Saincte Chappelle royale à Paris. Paris: Simon Du Bois for Galliot Du Pré, 20 May 1527. 8°

books related to the navarrian network

661

Dumolin, Guillaume. [Adapted from Heyden, Gaspar van der]. D 99 Notable et utile traicte Du zele et grant desir que doibt avoit ung vrai l’empereur christien pour garder à Jesuchrist son honneur entier. Strasbourg: Johann Pruss, 28 January 1527. 8° [Dumolin, Guillaume]. D 97 Le traicte de l’utilite et honneste de mariage. Et s’il est licite aux prestres de soi marier. Hebr. 13. “Mariage est honnorable en tous et la couche sans macule, mais les fornicateurs et adulteres Dieu les jugera.” Strasbourg: Johann Pruss, 4 April 1527. 8° Dumolin, Guillaume. [Adapted from Bugenhagen, Johannes]. D 98 Tresutile traicte, du vrai regne de antechrist maintenant revele et cogneu, à treshault et trespuissant seigneur, Philippe Marquis d’Arrescot, Conte de Portian et de Beaumont etc . . . et Capitaine general de l’Empereur nostre sire au pais de Hainault. Strasbourg: Johann Pruss [and Johann Knobloch, Sen.], 6 January 1527. 8° [Berquin, Louis de?]. [Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques?]. Erasmus, Desiderius. Duodecim Articuli infidelitatis magistri Natalis Bedae, Doctoris in facultate Theologiae Parisiensis: et eiusdem facultatis syndici. Ex libro suarum annotationum (similibus haeresibus et articulis infidelitatis referto & blasphemiis quae plurimis scatente). [Paris: Josse Bade, 1527?]. 8° Hangest, Jérôme de. De Libero arbitrio et eius coefficientia in Lutherum. Paris: Josse Bade for Jean Petit, [October] 1527. 4° Hours of Virgin Mary. Hore in laudem beatissime Virginis Marie secundum consuetudinem ecclesiae Parisiensis. Paris: Simon Du Bois for Geoffroy Tory, 20 May 1527. 4° Hours, Roman. Hore secundum ritum ecclesie romane. Paris: Simon Du Bois for Pierre Roffet, [1527]. 8° Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques. Iacobi Fabri Stapulensis, Theologi Celeberrimi, Commentarii in Epistolas Catholicas, Iacobi I. Petri II. Ioannis III. Iudae I. Nunc primum ab autore emissi et aediti. Basel: Andreas Cratander and Johannes Behelius [Bebel], July 1527. 2° [Luther, Martin. Lambert, François (tr?)]. L 118 Prophetie de Iesaie de l’enfant nouveau en Jesuchrist. Avec les annotations du docteur de Cleremont. Lisez chrestiens, et jugez. Pol. 1. Corinth. 14. Que deux ou trois prophetes parlent, et les aultres en jugent. [Strasbourg: Johann Pruss], 1527. 8° [Luther, Martin]. L 120 Sermon au jour de l’ascension. [Antwerp: Martin Lempereur, 1527?]. 8° [Luther, Martin]. L 122 Sermon de la maniere de prier Dieu et comment on doibt faire processions et rogations. [Antwerp: Martin Lempereur, 1527?]. 8° Marot, Clément. Complainte de Semblançay. S.l.n., [c. 1527]. 8°

662

appendix b

Marot, Clément. Déploration de Florimond Robertet. [Lyon: Claude Nourry, c. 1527]. 8° Pseudo-Seneca (Lucius Annaeus). Courtecuisse, Jean (tr.). Seyssel, Claude de. Des motz dorez, des quatre vertus cardinales. Paris: Simon Du Bois for Vve. Antoine Vérard, 12 April 1527. 8° Sentence de frere Jean Guibert. S 11 Sentence de frere Jehan Guibert hermite de Livry. Tous mes os diront Seigneur Dieu qui est ce qui est semblable à toi? Qui delivre le paoure de la main des puissantz son indigen et paoure de ceusz qui le deschirent. Pseaul. xxxviii. [Paris: Simon Du Bois, 1527]. 8° 1528 Bible. O.T. Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques (tr.). B 66 Le dernier volume de l’anchien testament contenant les prophetes: ascavoir, Esaias: Jeremias: Hezechiel: Daniel: Oseas: Joel: Amos: Abdias: Johas: Micheas: Naum: Habacuc: Saphonias: Aggeus: Zacharias: et Malachias. Antwerp: Martin Lempereur, 19 September 1528. 8° Bible. O.T. Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques (tr.). B 62 Le premier volume de l’anchien testament contenant les chinq livres de Moise: ascavoir Genese: Exode: Levitique: Les Nombres: et Deuteronome translatez en fransois selon la pure et entiere translation de saincte Hierosme. Antwerp: Martin Lempereur, 30 April [1528–1532]. 8° Bible. O.T. Psalms. Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques (tr. and comm.). Liber Psalmorum cum tenoribus ad recte proferendum aptissimis. Paris: Simon de Colines, 1528. 8° Bodius, Hermann [Bucer, Martin?]. B 210 La seconde partie de l’union de toutes discordes: livre tres utile à tous amateurs de verite, extraict des principaulx docteurs de l’eglise de la foi Catholique. Antwerp: Martin Lempereur, 1528. 8° Erasmus, Desiderius. Brie (Brixius), Germain de. Epistolae duae, Germani Brixii altera, altera Erasmi. Paris: Simon Du Bois for Chrestien Wechel, 1528. [Gaigny, Jean de (Johannes Gagnaeus)]. G6 Le livre faisant mention des sept parolles nostre benoist saulveur et redempteur Jesuchrist dit en l’arbre de la croix . . . avec aulcunes expositions et contemplations sur icelles extraictes de dictz et sentence des docteurs autentiques et approuvez. Paris: Simon Du Bois for Chrestien Wechel, 1528. 4° Hangest, Jérôme de. Hieronymus Hangestus, . . . de Libero arbitrio et eius coefficientia in Lutherum. Paris: André Bouchard for Jean Petit, [after 1527]. 8° Hangest, Jérôme de. Hieronymus Hangestus . . . De possibili praeceptorum divinorum impletione in Lutherum. Paris: Josse Bade for Jean Petit, 1528. 4°

books related to the navarrian network

663

Hangest, Jérôme de. Hieronymus Hangestus, . . . de Possibli praeceptorum divinorum impletione in Lutherum. Paris: Josse Badius for Jean Petit, 25 July 1528. 4° Grande Irrision des Lutheriens de Meaulx. I 59 La grande Irrision des Lutheriens de Meaulx. S.l.n., [1528?]. 8° [Luther, Martin. Farel, Guillaume]. Chrysostom, St. John. [Et al.]. L 97 Le livre de vraie et parfaicte oraison. “Omnia que desyderantur huic non valent comparari.” Prover.iii. Paris: Simon Du Bois (with Chrestien Wechsel), July 1528. 8° Montalembert, Adrien de. La Merueilleuse Hystoire de lesprit qui depuis naguere cest apparu au monestere de religieuses de Sainct Pierre de Lyon. Paris: [Guillaume de Bossozel], 15 October 1528. 4° Salmon, Jean (Macrin). Carminum libellus. Paris: s.n., 1528. 12° Te Deum. [Hilaire Courtois? “Prisciane” (chanson)]. T1 Le Te Deum pour l’eglise Lutherienne: en françois et en latin. Avec la Ballade et la chanson d’iceulx Lutheriens. [Lyon?: Jacques Moderne?, 1528?]. 8° 1529 Badet, Arnaud de. Margarita virorum illustrium de futuri temporis dispositione praenoscenda. S.l.n., [1529?]. Beaulieu, Eustorg de. Les gestes des solliciteurs ou les lisans pourront cognoistre qu’est ce de solliciteur estre et qui son leurs reformateurs. Bordeaux: s.n., 1529. 4° Beaulieu, Eustorg de. S’ensuyt le Pater et Ave des solliciteurs de proces surnommez batteurs de pave de credit souvent repoulsez. S.l.n., [c. 1529?]. 8° [Beaulieu, Eustorg de]. Le mirouer et exemple moral des enfans ingratz pour lesquelz les peres et meres se destruysent pour les augmenter qui en la fin descongnoissent. Paris: Alain Lotrian and Denis Janot, [1529?]. 4° Beda, Noël. Apologia Natalis Bedae Theologi, aduersus clandestinos Lutheranos. Paris: Josse Bade, 1 February 1529. 4° Bertrand, Jean. Encomium Joannis Bertaudi, Petragorici . . . de cultu trium Mariarum adversus Lutheranos, cum missa solenniore et officio canonico earundem. Paris: Josse Bade, 1529. 4° Bertrand, Jean. Encomium trium Mariarum cum earundem cultus defensione adversus Lutheranos, solennique missa et officio canonico earundem. Paris: Josse Bade, Galeoto a Pratis, 1529. 4°

664

appendix b

Bible. O.T. Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques (tr.). B 65 Le troisiesme volume de l’ancien testament contenant le livre de Tobie, de Judith, de Hester, de Job: et les trois livres de Salomon, ascavoir les Paraboles, Ecclesiaste, et les Cantiques des cantiques avec le livre de Sapience. Antwerp: Martin Lempereur, 12 August 1529. 8° Bible. N.T. Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques (tr.). B 160 Les choses contenues en ce present livre. Une breve instruction, pour deuement lire l’escriptures saincte. Le S. Evangile selon S. Matthieu. Le S. Evangile selon S. Marc. Le S. Evangile selon S. Luc. Le S. Evangile selon Jehan. [Alencon: Simon Du Bois], November 1529. 8° Bible. N.T. Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques (tr.). B 161 Le Nouveau Testament, contenant les quattre Evangelistes . . . avec les faitz des Apostres et les Epistres de Saint Paul, de Saint Jaques . . . et avec l’Apocalipse. Antwerp: Martin Lempereur and Guillaume Vorsterman, 18 January 1529. 8° Bible. N.T. Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques (tr.). B 162 La premiere [-seconde] partie du nouveau testament. [Lyon: Pierre de Vingle, 1529?]. 16° Bourbon, Nicolas. N. Burbo. Vandoperani, campani, Epigrammata, ad R. D. Carolum Turonium episc. Vivarien. designatum. politiorum literarum immortalem decus. Item Eiusdem N. Burbo. Ad generosos adolescentes Jacobum et Justum Turnonios. Item alia quedam lectu non indigna. Lyon: Laurent Hyllaire, February 1529 [1530 n.s?]. 8° [Brunfels, Otto]. B 271 Les Prieres et oraisons de la Bible, faictes par les sainctz peres, et par les hommes et femmes illustres: tant de l’ancien que du nouveau testament. Antwerp: Guillaume Vorsterman and Martin Lempereur, 18 August 1529. 16° Clichtove, Josse. Council of Sens. Compendium veritatum ad fidem pertinentium, contra erroneas Lutheranorum assertiones, ex dictis et actis in concilio provinciali Senonensi, apud Parisios celebrato, anno 1528, per Iudocum Clichtoveum Neoportuensem, doctorem theologum Parisiensem. Paris: Simon de Colines, 1529. 2° Coutumes du Maine. Ce sont les coustumes du pays et conte du Maine publiees par messeigneurs maistres Thibault Baillet president et Jehan Le Lievre conseiller en la cour de Parlement a Paris, par commission et mandement du Roi nostre sire. Alençon: Simon Du Bois, 1529. 8° Erasmus, Desiderius. [Berquin, Louis de (tr ?)]. E 28 Enchidirion [sic] (ou Manuel) du chevalier Chrestien: aorne de commandemens tressalutaires . . . avec un prologue merveilleusement utile et de nouveau adjouste. [Antwerp]: Martin Lempereur, 1529. 8° [Farel, Guillaume]. F 26 Summaire, et brieve declaration d’aucuns lieux fort necessaires à un chascun Chrestien. [Lyon: Pierre de Vingle], 1529.

books related to the navarrian network

665

Hangest, Jérôme de. Hieronymi ab Hangesto, . . . Praeconiorum sacrosanctae Christ matris virginisque semper gloriosae Mariae adversus antimarianos propugnaculum. Paris: Josse Badius for Jean Petit, 9 August 1529. 4° Lambert, François. L 11 Somme Chrestienne à tresvictorieux empereur Charles. Marburg: [Franciscus Rhode], 17 March 1529. 8° [Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques]. Grammatographia ad prompte citoque discendam grammaticen. Pairs: Simon de Colines, October 1529. 4° [Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques. Bucer, Martin (dedicatory epistle)]. L 26 Vocabulaire du psautier exposé en François. Vobacularium Psalterii pro ingenue indolis adolescente D. Angolimensi, et sorore eius D. Magdalena modestissima adolescentula, liberis regiis, ac denique pro cunctis rudibus, primum in grammaticis initiandis. Paris: Simon de Colines, 1529. 8° [Luther, Martin]. L 115 Breve Instruction pour deuement lire l’escripture. [Alençon: Simon Du Bois], 1529. 8° Luther, Martin. Brenz, Johannes. D. Martini Lutheri Theologi, Catechismus, lectu dignißimus, latinus factus per Vincentium Obsopoeum. Huic adiecti sunt alii quoque gemini Catechismi, Johannis Brentii Ecclesiastae Hallensis, eodem interprete. Hagenau: Johannes Secerius, [after 1 July] 1529. 8° [Luther, Martin]. L 114 La Maniere de lire l’evangile et quel profit on en doibt attendre. [Antwerp: Martin Lempereur, 1529?]. 8° [Luther, Martin. Farel, Guillaume]. Chrysostom, St. John. [Et al.]. L 98 Le livre de vraie et parfaicte oraison. Paris: Simon Du Bois for Chrestien Wechel, April 1529. 8° Valla, Lorenzo. Laurentz Valle Poete et Orateur Romain sur la Donation de Constantin Empereur. [Alençon: Simon Du Bois, 1529–1534?]. 4° 1530 Almanach spirituel et perpetuel. A5 Almanach spirituel et perpetuel necessaire à tout homme sensuel et temporel. [Alençon: Simon Du Bois, 1530]. 8° Badet, Arnaud de. Margarita sacrae scripturae. S.l.n., [after 1529]. Bible. Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques (tr.). B 35 La Sainct Bible en Francois, translatee selon la pure entiere traduction de Sainct Hierome, conferee et entierement revisitee . . . sus ung chascun chapitre est mis brief argument. Antwerp: Martin Lempereur, 10 December 1530. 2° Bible. O.T. Solomon. Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques (tr.). B 145 Les Sentences de Solomon, doctrine tressalutaire à tous vrais enfans de Dieu, desirans estre instruitz en toutes bonnes meurs: selon la verite Hebraique. Antwerp: Martin Lempereur, [1530?]. 16°

666

appendix b

Bible. N.T. Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques (tr.). B 163 La premiere [-seconde] partie du Nouveau Testament. [Lyon: Pierre de Vingle, 1530?]. 8° Brefve exposition sur la treschrestienne et tresparfaicte oraison du Pater noster. E 74 Brefve exposition sur la treschrestienne et tresparfaicte oraison du Pater noster. [Alençon: Simon Du Bois, 1530]. 8° Brief instruction pour soy confesser. I 57 Breve instruction pour soi confesser en verite. [Alençon: Simon Du Bois, 1530?]. 8° [Brunfels, Otto]. B 272 Les oraisons de la Bible faictes par les Peres et par les Femmes fideles, tant de l’Ancien que du Nouveau Testament, avec plusieurs introductions. Antwerp: Martin Lempereur, 1530. [Brunfels, Otto. “Marcourt, Antoine, (preface?)]. B 273 Les Prieres et oraisons de la Bible, faictes par les sainctz peres, et par les hommes et femmes illustres: tant de l’Ancien que du Nouveau Testament. [Lyon: Pierre de Vingle], 19 August 1530. 12° Cajetan, Tommaso de Vio (Cajetanus). Questiones quodlibetales . . . cum aliquot assertionibus contra Lutheranos et aliis difficultatem theologarum enodationibus. Paris: François Regnault and Nicoals Savetier, 1530. Chappeau des Lutheriens. C 103 Le Chappeau des Lutheriens. S.l.n., [1530?]. 8° Le combat chrestien. C 124 Le combat chrestien I. Timothee chap. vi. Bataille la bonne batille de Foi: prens la vie eternelle en laquelle tu es apelle. ii a Timothee chap. iiii. “J’ay bataille bonne bataille j’ay acheve mon couis j’ay garde la foi.” I. de S. Pierre chap. iiii. [Alençon: Simon Du Bois, 1530?]. 8° Erasmus, Desiderius. Chansonnette, Claude (tr.). E 37 Maniere de se confesser. S.l.n., 1530. Exposition sur le Pater Noster. E 75 Brefve et devote exposition par maniere dexhortation et doraison, faicte sur le Pater noster: et autres parolles de nostre Seigneur Jesuchrist recitees au .vi. chapitre de sainct Matthieu. [Lyon: Pierre de Vingle, 1530?]. 8° Gringore, Pierre. G 40 Le Blazon des heretiques. [Lyon?: Jacques Moderne?, 1530?]. 8° Illyricus, Thomas. I2 Copie de la prophetie faicte par le pauvre frere thomas souverain exclamateur de la parolle de Dieu nouvellement translatee de ytalien en francois. [Paris?]: s.n., [1530?]. 8° [Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques?] Campanus, Joannis Larcherius (prefatory poem). Chalcographus, Thomas (prefatory poem). Clavis tesserarum Grammatographiae. Paris: Simon de Colines, 1530. 4°

books related to the navarrian network

667

[Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques. Roussel, Gérard (ed?). Et al.]. L 20 Epistres et evangiles pour les cinquante et deux dimenches de l’an, avecques briefves et tresutiles expositions dycelles, necessaires et consolables pour tous fideles Chrestiens, nouvellement reveues et augmentees par gens doctes en la saincte escripture. [Lyon: Pierre de Vingle, 1530?]. 16° [Luther, Martin]. L 96 La Fleur des commandementz et declaration des bonnes oeuvres. Ecclesiaste 12: “Crains Dieu et obsuerve les commandementz dicellui, car appartient egalement à tous hommes.” [Alençon: Simon Du Bois, 1530?]. 8° [Luther, Martin]. L 116 La Maniere de lire l’evangile et quel proffit on en doibt attendre . . . et aussi la maniere de mediter et penser à la passion de nostre saulveur Jesuchrist, fort consolatoire à toute personne qui a quelque tribulation. [Lyon: Pierre de Vingle, 1530?]. 8° [Luther, Martin. Farel, Guillaume]. Chrysostom, St. John. [Et al.]. L 99 Le livre de vraie et parfaicte oraison. Paris: Jean Kerbriat for Chrestien Wechel, April 1530. 8° Marot, Clément. Les opuscules et petitz Traictez de Clement Marot de Quahors. Varlet de chambre du Roy. Contenens Chantz royaulx Ballades Rondeaulx Epistres Elegies, auec le Temple de Cupido, et la plaincte de Robertet, ensemble plusieurs aultres choses ioyeuses. Lyon: Olivier Arnoullet, [c. 1530]. 8° Plato. Des Périers, Bonaventure (tr.). Lysis. S.l.n., [1530s?]. Salmon, Jean (Macrin). Carminum libri quatuor ad Hilermum Bellaium cognomento Langium. Paris: Simon de Colines, 1530. 8° Saulnier, Antoine. S2 Chanson nouvelle composee sur les dix commandemns de Dieu extraicte de la saincte Escripture. S.l.n., [1530?]. 4° 1531 Bible. O.T. Ecclesiastes. Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques (tr.). [Brenz, Johannes (comm.)]. B 68 L’Ecclesiaste preschant que toutes choses sans Dieu sont vanite. Tout est vanite. Sap. viii. “Vains sont tous hommes qui n’ont congnoissance de Dieu.” [Alençon: Simon Du Bois, 1531?]. 8° Bible. O.T. Psalms. Prato, Felix de [Pratensis] (tr.). B 75 Le livre des Pseaulmes de David, traduictes selon la pure verite Hebraique ensuivant . . . l’interpretation de Felix. Antwerp: Martin Lempereur, 1531. 8° Bible. O.T. Psalms. Marot, Clément (tr.). B 77 Le VI. Pseaulme de David qui est le premier Pseaulme des sept Pseaulmes translate en françois par Clement Marot, Varlet de chambre du Roy nostre sire, au plus pres de la verite Ebraicque. [Lyon?: Claude Nourry?, 1531?]. 8°

668

appendix b

Bible. N.T. Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques (tr.). B 164 Le nouveau Testament, auquel est demonstre Jesu Chrsit sauver du monde estre venu: annonce de Dieu à noz Peres anciens des le commencement du monde, et en plusieurs lieux predict par les Prophetes. Antwerp: Martin Lempereur, 1 July 1531. 8° Cousturier [Sutor], Pierre. Apologia aduersus damnatum Lutheri haeresin. Paris: Poncet Le Preux [and Nicolas Savtier], 1531. 8° Erasmus, Desiderius. Berquin, Louis de (tr.). E 24 La Complainte de la paix. [Lyon: Pierre de Vingle, 1531?]. 8° Faculty of Theology, Paris. Determinatio Facultatis Theologiae in Schola Parisiensi super quam plurimis assertionibus D. Erasmi Rot. Paris: Josse Bade, 1531. Halewijn, Joris van (Georges d’). “Les erreurs de Luther.” S.l.n., [1531?]. Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques. Commentarii in Pauli epistolas. Paris: Jean Petit and François Regnault, 1531. 2° Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques. Commentarii initiatorii in quatuor evangelia. Cologne: Eucharius Cervicornus for Gottfried Hittorp, [1531?]. 4° Lucian of Samostata. [Vegio, Maffeo (tr.). Vauzelles, Jean de (tr.)]. Le Martire de verite, dialogue de Lucian mis en lumiere Francoise. Lyon: François Juste, [1531–1547]. 8° [Marguerite de Navarre. Heyden, Gaspar van der]. M 34 Le miroir de l’ame pecheresse, ouquel elle recongnoist ses faultes et pechez, aussi les graces et benefices à elle faictz par Jesuchrist son espoux. La Marguerite tresnoble et precieuse, sest proposee à ceulx qui de bon cueur la cerchoient. Alençon: Simon Du Bois, 1531. 4° [Marot, Clément?]. Eglogue sur le trépas de Louise de Savoie. [Paris?]: s.n., [c. 1531]. 4° Salmon, Jean (Macrin). Lyricorum libri duo ad Franciscum Valesium, quibus additur Epithalamiorum liber unus ad Honoratum Sabaudianum. Paris: Gerardi Morrhi Campesis, 1531. 8° Vauzelles, Jean de. Police subsidaire à celle quasi infinie multitude des povres survenuz à Lyon sur le Rosne, l’an mil cinq cens XXXI. Avec les graces que les povres en rendent à Dieu et à messieurs de l’eglise et aulx notables de la ville. Toulouse: s.n., 1531. 4° Vauzelles, Jean de. Theatre de Francoise desolatione sur le trespas de la tresaugust Loise: louable admiration de Savoie et de feminine gloire: represeante d’une vrai zele. Lyon: s.n., [10 November 1531?]. 8°

books related to the navarrian network

669

1532 Apologie pour la foi. A 10 Apologie pour la foi chrestienne contre les erreurs de . . . George Halevin. Paris: Geoffroy Tory, 22 March 1532. 8° Badet, Arnaud de. Distructorium haerisum a R.P. inquistitore Tolosano F. Arnaldo de Badeto S.T.P. novissime constructum. Paris: Pierre Vidoue, 1532. 8° Bible. O.T. Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques (tr.). B 63 Le second volume de l’anchien Testament contenant pour sa premiere partie le Livre de Josue, le Livre des Juges, et le Livre de Ruth. Antwerp: Martin Lempereur, 1532. 8° Bible. O.T. Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques (tr.). B 64 Le second volume de l’ancien Testament, contenant pour la seconde partie les quattre livres des Roix, les deux livres de Paralipomenon, et les quattre livres de Esdras. Antwerp: Martin Lempereur, 1 July 1532. 8° Bible. O.T. Psalms. Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques (tr.). Luther, Martin (preface). Bucer, Martin (comm.). B 78 Le livre des Psalmes. Misericorde environnera cellui qui espere au Seigneur Dieu. Psal. xxxii. [Alençon: Simon Du Bois, 1532?]. 8° Bible. N.T. Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques (tr.). B 166 Le nouveau Testament, contenant les quattre Evangelistes . . . avec les faictz des Apostres: et les Epistres sainct Paul, les Epistres Canoniques, et l’Apocalypse. Antwerp: Martin Lempereur, 10 April 1532. 16° Bodius, Hermann [Bucer, Martin?]. B 211 La Premiere [-seconde] partie de Lunion de toutes discordes: qui est ung livre tres utile à tous amateurs de paix et de unite, extraict des principaulx docteurs de l’eglise Catholique Hermann Bodius Reviste. Antwerp: Martin Lempereur, 1532. 8° Concordata inter papam Leonem X et regem Franciscum. Concordata inter papam Leonem X et regem Franciscum I. Pragmatica Sanctio. Paris: Antoine Augereau, 1532. 8° Erasmus, Desiderius. Desyderii Erasmi Roterodami Colloquia aliquot nova, mire et urbana, et erudita, quorum nomina haec sunt, Amicitia. Opulentia sordida. Concio. Exequitae serphicae. Philodoxus. “Louvain” [Paris]: “Germain Fiscus” [Antoine Augereau], 11 April 1532. 8° Erasmus, Desiderius. Dilutio eorum quae Iodocus Clithoveus scripsit adversus Declamationem Des. Erasmi Roterodami suasoriam matrimonii. Basel: Johann Froben, February 1532. Erasmus, Desiderius. [Berquin, Louis de (tr?)]. E 29 Enchiridion (ou Manuel) du Chevalier Chresien: aorne de commandemens tressalutaires . . . avec un prologue merveilleusement utile et de nouveau adjouste. [Lyon: Pierre de Vingle, 1532?]. 8° Eusebius of Cesarea. Seyssel, Claude de (tr.). [Colin, Jacques (ed?)]. L’Histoire ecclesiastique de Eusebe de Cesare, tranlatee de Latin en Francois, par Messire Claude de Seyssel. [Paris: Geoffroy Tory, before 1532]. 8°

670

appendix b

[Farel, Guillaume? Viret, Pierre?]. F5 De La Tressaincte Cene de nostre Seigneur Jesus: et de la Messe qu’on chante communement. [Basel: Thomas Wolff, 1532?]. 16° [Farel, Guillaume]. F 27 Summaire et briefve declaration daulcuns lieux fort necessaire à ung chascun chrestien pour mettre sa confiance en Dieu et ayder son prochain. Jaques Chap. 1. En mansuetude et douclceur recepuez la parolle de Dieu laquelle est puissante de sauluer nos. “Turin” [Alençon: Simon Du Bois], “1525” [c. 1532]. 8° Fossetier, Julien. F 50 Conseil de volentier morir. Antwerp: Martin Lempereur, 1532. 8° Hangest, Jérôme de. De Academiis in Lutherum Hieronymus ab Hangesto. Paris: Josse Bade for Jean Petit, [1532]. 4° [Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques. Et al.]. L 21 Les choses contenues en ce present livre. Epistre et Evangiles pour les cinquante et deux sepmaines de l’an commenceans au premier dimenche de Ladvent. . . . Apres chascune Epistre et Evangile briefve exhortation selon l’intelligence d’icelle. [Alençon: Simon Du Bois, 1532?]. 8° [Luther, Martin. Berquin, Louis (tr ?). Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques (tr ?)]. L 82 Consolation chrestienne, contre les afflictions de ce monde et scrupules de conscience. O seigneur Dieu faiz que ton nom soit magnifie en tous lieux eternellement. [Alençon: Simon Du Bois, 1532?]. 8° [Luther, Martin]. L 119 Quatre instructions fideles pour les simples et les rudes. La premiere. L’homme fidele visitant. La seconde. Lhomme fidele catechisant. La tierce. l’homme fidele introduisant à l’Evangile. La quarte. Lhomme fidele psalmodiant Jehan iii. [Alençon: Simon Du Bois, 1532]. 8° Somme de l’écriture. [Luther, Martin, (ch. 26 on secular government)]. S 26 La Summe de l’escripture saincte, et l’ordinaire des chrestiens, enseignant la vraie foi Chrestienne: par laquelle nous sommes tous justifiez. Et de la vertu du baptesme, selon la doctrine de l’Evangile, et des Apostres. “Basel” [Alençon]: “Thomas Wolf”[Simon Du Bois], “1523” [1532?]. 8° Marot, Clément. L’adolescence Clementine. Autrement, Les Oeuures de Clement Marot de Cahors en Quercy, Valet de Chambre du Roy, composees en leage de son Adolecence. Avec la Complaincte sur le Trespas de feu Messire Florimond Roberetet. Et plusieurs autres Oeuvres. Paris: Geoffroy Tory for Pierre Roffet, 12 August 1532. 8° Marot, Clémemt. Petit traicté. Paris: Vve. Jean Saint-Denys, [February–June 1532]. 8°

books related to the navarrian network

671

Netter, Thomas [Waldensis, Thomas]. Tomus primus Doctrinalis fidei ecclesiae catholicae Witclevistas et Hussitas eorumque sectatores, compositi per venerabilem patrem F. Thomae Walden . . . continentisque libros quatuor de Christo ac Petro et ecclesia deque religiosis et aliis perfectis. Paris: Josse Bade, 1532. 2° Numerus et tituli cardinalium. Numerus et tituli cardinalium, achiepiscoporum et episcoporum. Taxae et valor beneficiorum. Paris: Antoine Augereau for Galiot Du Pré, 1532. 8° “Pathelin, Maistre Pierre.” [Alexis, Guillaume]. Le Grant blason de faulses amours. Le loyer de folles amours. Paris: [Antoine Augereau] for Galiot Du Pré, 1532. 8° [Rabelais, François]. R1 Pantagruel. Les horribles et espoventables faictz et prouesses du tresrenomme Pantagruel Roi des Dipsodes, filz du grand geant Gargantua. Lyon: Claude Nourry, [1532?]. 8° 1533 Alamanni, Luigi. Opere toscane di Luigi Alamanni, al christianissimo rè Francesco primo. Venice: P. Nicolini da Sabbio, 1533. Augustine, St. Ad inimicos gratiae libellus. Paris: Antoine Augereau, 1533. 8° Augustine, St. De spiritu et litera, liber unus [ – ex secundo libro retractationum argumentum, – ad Marcellinum, – & finis] . . . Augustinus sixto presbytero, instruens illum aduersus pelagianorum argumenta. Paris: Antoine Augereau, 1533. 16° Bible. N.T. Paul’s Epistles. Lorus, Damianus (ed.). Erasmus, Desiderius (tr.). Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques (tr.). Epistolae Divi Pauli Apostoli cum triplici editione ad veritatem graecam. Passio Beati Pauli. Epistola ad Laodicenses. Scedule ad Senecam sex. Venice: Jo. Antonius and the Sabbio brothers for Joanne Antonius Garupha, 1533. 8° Bodius, Hermann [Bucer, Martin?]. B 212 La premiere partie de lunion de plusieurs passaiges de lescritpure saincte. Livre treutile à tous amateurs de paix: Extraict des autenticques docteurs de l’eglise chrestienne . . . reveu et corrige. [Geneva: Pierre de Vingle], 10 June 1533. 8° Bodius, Hermann [Bucer, Martin?]. Saulnier, Antoine (dedication). B 213 La seconde partie de Lunion de plusieurs passages de l’escripture saincte: Livre tresutile à tous amateurs de verite, extraicte de principaulx docteurs de l’eglise de la foi Catholicque . . . reveu et corrige. [Geneva: Pierre de Vingle], 12 June 1533. 8° Bourbon, Nicolas. Nicolai Boronii Vandoperani Nugae. Mantua Virgilijs tumeat, Verona Catullis, Gaudet Borbonio Lingonis ora suo. Paris: Michel Vascosan, 1533. 8°

672

appendix b

Bourbon, Nicolas. Nicolai Boronii . . . Nugae. Basel: Andreas Cratander, 1533. 8° [Brunfels, Otto. Luther, Martin. Erasmus, Desiderius. Brenz, Johannes]. B 274 Les Oraisons de la Bible Faictes par les Peres et femmes fideles, tant de Lancien comme du Nouveau Testament: avec plusieurs Introductions. Antwerp: Martin Lempereur, 9 January 1533. 16° Clichtove, Josse. De Laudibus trium antiquorum patrum: Joseph patriarchae, David regis et Tobiae, trifidum opusculum. S.l.n., 1533. 4° Clichtove, Josse. Improbatio quorundam articulorum Martini Lutheri, a veritate catholica dissidentium: et in quodam libello gallico, qui hic discutitur, non satis exacte nec recte impugnatorum. Elaborata per Iudocum Clichtoveum Neoportuensem, doctorem theologum. Paris: Simon de Colines, 1533. 4° Clichtove, Josse. Le livre et traicté de toute vraye noblesse, nouvellement translaté de latin en françoys. Lyon: Thibault Payen, 1533. 8° Confession de Beda. C 126 La confession et raison de la foi de maistre Noel Beda Docteur en theologie et Sindique de la sacree universite à Paris: envoyee au treschrestien Roi de france, Francois premier de ce nom. [Neuchâtel: Pierre de Vingle], 1 December 1533. 8° Dolet, Étienne. Stephani Doleti Orationes duae in Tholosam; Ejusdem Epistolarum libri II; Ejusdem Carminum libri II; Ad eundem Epistolarum amicorum liber. Lyon: Sébastien Gryphe, 1533. 8° Erasmus, Desiderius. Des. Erasmi Roterodami Liber de sarcienda Ecclesiae concordia, deque sedandis opinionum dissidiis, cum aliis nonullis lectu dignis, Omnia recens nata et nunc primum typis excusa. Strasbourg: Nicolaus Faber, October 1533. 8° Eusebius of Cesarea. Seyssel, Claude de (tr.). [Colin, Jacques (ed?)]. L’Histoire ecclesiastique de Eusebe de Cesare, tranlatee de Latin en Francois, par Messire Claude de Seyssel, evesque lors de Marseille, et depuis Archevesque de Thurin. Antwerp: Martin Lempereur, 1533. 8° Exposition de l’oraison dominicale. E 78 Cy commence ung devot et nouveau Traicte contenant plusieurs expositions utilles sur l’oraison dominicale, aultrement dicte la Patinostre. Paris: Vve. Jean Saint-Denys?, 1533. 4° Farel, Guillaume. F 19 La maniere et fasson qu’on tient en baillant le sainct baptesme . . . et en espousant . . . et à la saincte Cene de nostre seigneur, es lieux lesquelz Dieu de sa grace a visite. Neuchâtel: Pierre de Vingle, 29 August 1533. 8° Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques. Commentarii in Pauli epistolas. Venice: Garupha and Sabbio, January 1533. 8°

books related to the navarrian network

673

Longueil, Christophe de. Christophori Longolii Orationes duae pro defensione sua; . . . Oratio una ad Luterianos; . . . Epistolarum libri quatuor; Epistolarum Bembi & Sadoleti liber unus. [Paris]: Josse Bade and Jean Roigny, 1533. 8° Malingre, Matthieu (ed.). C 101 Sensuivent plusieurs belles et bonnes chansons, que les chrestiens peuvent chanter en grande affection de cueur: pour et affin de soulager leurs esperitz et de leur donner repos en dieu. [Neuchâtel: Pierre de Vingle], 1533. 8° [Malingre, Matthieu]. M8 Moralite de la maladie de Chrestiente, a. xiii. personnages: en laquelle sont monstrez plusieurs abuz, aduenuz au monde, par la poison de peche et l’hypocrisie des hereticques. Foi. Esperance. Charite. Chrestiente. Bon oeuvre. Hyposrisie. Peche. [Neuchâtel: Pierre de Vingle], 1533. 8° [Marcourt, Antoine]. M 23 Le livre des marchans, fort utile a toutes gens nouvellement compose par le sire Pantopole, bien expert en tel affaire, prochain voisin du seigneur Pantagruel. [Neuchâtel: Pierre de Vingle], 22 August 1533. 8° Marguerite de Navarre. M 31 Dialogue en forme de vision nocturne entre tresnoble & excellente princesse ma dame Marguerite de France soeur unique du Roi nostre sire par la grace de Dieu Roine de Navarre duchesse d’Alencon et Berry et l’ame saincte de defuncte madame Charlote de France fille aysnee dudit sieur & niepce de ladite dame Royne. Alençon: Simon Du Bois, 1533. 4° [Marguerite de Navarre. Heyden, Gaspar van der]. M 35 Le miroir de lame pecheresse: ouquel elle recongnoist ses faultes et pechez, aussy les graces et benefices à elle faictz par Jesus Christ son espoux. La Marguerite tresnoble et precieuse, sest proposee à ceulx qui de bon cueur la cerchoient. Alençon: Simon Du Bois, 1533. 4° [Marguerite de Navarre. Heyden, Gaspar van der]. M 36 Le miroir de lame pecheresse. Auquel elle recongnoist ses faultes et pechez, aussi les graces et benefices à elle faictz par Jesuchrist son espoux. [Paris: Antoine Augereau, before October 1533?]. 8° Marguerite de Navarre. [Heyden, Gaspar van der]. Marot, Clément. M 37 Le Miroir de treschrestienne Princesse Marguerite de France, Royne de Nauarre, Duchesse D’alençon & de Berry: auquel elle uoit & son neant, & son tout. Paris: Antoine Augereau, [November?] 1533. 8° Marguerite de Navarre. [Heyden, Gaspar van der]. Marot, Clément. M 38 Le Miroir de treschrestienne Princesse Marguerite de France, Royne de Nauarre, Duchesse D’alençon & de Berry: auquel elle uoit & son neant, & son tout. Paris: Antoine Augereau, December 1533. 8° Marot, Clément. La Svite de l’adolescence Clementine, dont le contenu sensuyt, Les Elegies de L’autheur, les Epistres differentes, Les Chantz diuers, Le Cymetiere, et le Menu. Paris: Vve. Pierre Roffet, [End 1533?]. 8° [Olivétan, Pierre Robert]. O5 L’Instruction des enfans, contenant la maniere de prononcer et escrire en françois. L’Oraison de Jesu Christ. Les articles de la foi. Les dix commandemens.

674

appendix b

La salutation angelicque. Avec la declaration d’iceux. [Geneva: Pierre de Vingle], 1533. 8° Pardons et indulgences, le tresgrand Jubile de plainiere remission. P3 Les grans pardons et indulgences, le tresgrand Jubile de plainiere remission de peine et de coulpe à tous les confaires de la tressacree confrairie du saincte esperit. [Geneva: Pierre de Vingle, 1533]. 8° Prosper of Aquitaine, St. Adversus inimicos gratiae Dei. Paris: Antoine Augereau, 1533. 8° Rabelais, François. Almanach pour l’an 1533, calculé sur le Meridiional de la noble cité de Lyon, et sur le climat du royaume de France. Composé par moy François Rabelais, Docteur en Medecine, et Professeur en Astrologie. [Lyon?]: s.n., 1533. [Rabelais, François]. R3 Pantagruel. Les horribles et espoventables faictz et prouesses du tresrenomme Pantagruel Roi des Dipsodes filz du grand geant Gargantua. [Paris?: Jean and Enguilbert de Marnef], 1533. 8° Rabelais, François. Pantagrueline prognostication certaine, veritable et infalible pour l’an mil DXXXIII. Nouvellement composée au profit et advisement de gens estroudis et musars de nature par maistre Alcofribas, architriclin dudict Pantagruel. [Lyon: François Juste, 1533]. 4° Rabelais, François. Pantagrueline Prognostication certaine, veritable et infalible pour l’an mil. D. xxxiii. S.l.n., [1533]. 8° Rabelais, François. Pantagrueline Prognostication certaine, veritable et infalible pour l’an mil. D. xxxiii. S.l.n., [1533]. 8° Salomon, Jean (Florimond). Clément Marot. F 42 Epistre familiere de prier Dieu. Aultre Epistre familiere d’aymer chrestiennement. Paris: [Antoine Augereau], 1533. 8° Salomon, Jean (Florimond). Clément Marot. F 43 Epistre familiere de prier Dieu. Aultre epistre familiere d’aymer Chrestiennement. Item, Breifue doctrine pour deuement escripre selon la propriete du langaige Francoys. [Paris: Antoine Augereau], 1533. 8° Salomon, Jean (Florimond). Clément Marot. F 44 Epistre familiere de prier Dieu. Aultre epistre familiere d’aymer Chrestiennement. Item, Breifue doctrine pour deuement escripre selon la propriete du langaige Francoys. Paris: [Antoine Augereau], December 1533. 8° Treatises and images. “Treatises and images against Marguerite de Navarre.” [Paris: s.n., 1533]. Vérité cachée. V8 La Verite cachee, devant cent ans faicte et composee à six personnages: nouvellement corrigee et augmentee avec les autoritez de la saincte escripture. [Neuchâtel: Pierre de Vingle, 1533?]. 8°

books related to the navarrian network

675

1534 Agrippa von Nettesheim, Heinrich Cornelius. Henrici Cornelii Agrippae de beatissimae Annae monogamia, ac unico puerperio propositione abbreviatae et articulatae iuxta disceptationem Iabobi Fabri Stapulensis in libro de tribus et una intitulato. [Antwerp?]: s.n., 1534. 8° Ambroise, St. Divi Ambrosii episcopi de vocatione omnium gentium. Paris: Antoine Augereau, 1534. 8° L’arbre de la Foye chrestienne. L’arbre de la Foye chrestienne. S.l.n., [submitted for censure 15 December 1534]. Augustine, St. Divi Aurelii Augustini Hipponensi Episcopi, ad Europium [sic] et Paulum episcopos, liber de perfectione Iustitiae contra Celestium. Paris: Antoine Augereau, 1534. 8° Augustine, St. D. Aurelii Augustini Hipponensis episcopi, de doctrina Christiana libri, IIII. omnibus sacram scripturam vel recte intelligere, vel fructuose populo proponere volentibus perquam vtiles et necessarii. Paris: Antoine Augereau, 1534. 8° Augustine, St. D. Aurelii Augustini Hipponensis episcopi de Fide et operibus. Paris: Antoine Augereau, 1534. 8° Augustine, St. De gratia et libero arbitrio. Paris: Antoine Augereau, 1534. 8° Augustine, St. Divi Bernardi [sic] . . . De gratia et libero arbitrio tractatus. Paris: Antoine Augereau, 1534. 8° Augustine, St. D. Aurelii Augustini Hipponensis episcopi de Natura et Gratia. Paris: Antoine Augereau, 1534. 8° Augustine, St. D. Aurelii Augustini episcopi de praedestinatione sanctorum. Paris: Antoine Augereau for Jean de Roigny, 1534. 8° Augustine, St. Divi Aurelii Augustini Hipponensis Episcopi de Spiritu et litera, liber unus. Paris: Antoine Augereau for Jean de Roigny, 1534. 8° Bernard, St. Divi Bernardi Abbatis Clarevallis, Ordinis Cisterciensis: Doctoris disertissimi ac vere melliflui, de Gratia et libero arbitrio tractatus. Paris: Antoine Augereau, 1534. 8° Bible. Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques (tr.). B 39 La sainct Bible en Francois, translatee selon la pure entiere traduction de Sainct Hierome, derechief conferee et entierement revisitee . . . sus ung chascun Chapitre est mis brief argument. Antwerp: Martin Lempereur, 6 April 1534. 2°

676

appendix b

Bible. O.T. Job. [Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques (tr?)]. “Le Viateur” (comm.). B 69 Texte de Hiob translate selon la verite hebraique. Et bref commentaire du Viateur sur icellui. Si nous avons receu bien du seigneur Dieu pourquoi aussy ne recepvrons nous le mal? Le seigneur Dieu la donne le seigneur Dieu la oste. [Paris?: Simon Du Bois, 1534?]. 12° Bible. N.T. Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques (tr.). [Malingre, Matthieu (table)]. B 167 Le nouveau testament de nostre seigneur et seul sauveur Jesus Chrit . . . Ce nouveau testament a este de nouveau imprime en telle grosse lettre que vous voyez, pour plus aysement et facilement lire une tante Saincte lecture. Avec une briefuve table des plus. Neuchâtel: Pierre de Vingle, 27 March 1534. 2° Bombellus, R. Historia exerpta, de horrendo scelere in sacratissimae uirginis imaginem, per quosdam Lutheranos. [Paris: François Gryphe, 1534]. Brie (Brixius), Germain de. Germani Brixii epistolae duae lectu non indignae. Altera ad Reuerendissimum et ampliss. Cardinalem Turnonium archiepiscopum Bituricensem. Altera ad Reuerendum episcopum Parisiensem. Paris: Antoine Augereau, 1534. 4° Campen, Jan van. [Bucer, Martin (preface). Zwingli, Ulrich (preface)]. C 83 Paraphrase, c’est à dire, Claire translation faicte jouxte la sentence non pas jouxte la Lettre, sur tous les Psalmes, selon la verité Hebraique. [Paris: Simon Du Bois], 17 June 1534. 8° Canossa, Luigi di. De modo legendi hebraïce dialogus. Paris: s.n., 1534. 8° Chansons. [Malingre, Matthieu, (ed?)]. C 98 Chansons nouvelles demonstrantz plusieurs erreurs et faulsetez: desquelles le paovre monde est remply par les ministres de Satan. [Neuchâtel: Pierre de Vingle, 1534?]. 8° Clichtove, Josse. Sermones Iudoci Clichtovei Neoportueñ, Doctoris theologiae, et Carnoteñ. canonici. Paris: Vve. Thielman Kerver and Yoland Bonhomme, 1534. 2° Cousturier [Sutor], Pierre. Petri Sutoris . . . de potestate ecclesiae in occultis. Paris: Maurice de La Porte, 1534. 8° Dialogus de vanitate scientiarum et ruina christianae relligionis. Dialogus de vanitate scientiarum et ruina christianae relligionis per quendam relligiosum Patrem Ordinis Cisterciensis Monachum recenter editus. M. D. XXXIIII. S.l.n., 1534. 8° Dolet, Étienne. Stephani Doleti Orationes duae in Tholosam; Ejusdem Epistolarum libri II; Ejusdem Carminum libri II; Ad eundem Epistolarum amicorum liber. Lyon: Sébastien Gryphe, 1534. 8° Erasmus, Desiderius. Des. Erasmi Roterodami Liber de sarcienda Ecclesiae concordia, deque sedandis opinionum dissidiis, cum aliis nonullis lectu dignis, Omnia recens nata et

books related to the navarrian network

677

nunc primum typis excusa. Basel: Hieronymus Froben and Nicolaus Episcopius, 1534. 8° Erasmus, Desiderius. Des. Erasmi . . . Purgatio adversus epistolam non sobriam Martini Lutheri. Paris: Chrestien Wechel, 1534. 8° Eusebius of Caesarea. George of Trebizond (tr.). Eusebius de evangelica praeparatione a Georgio Trapezuntio e Graeco in Latinum traductus, opus cuique fideli non solum utile uerumetiam iucundum et pernecessarium, summaque diligentia emendatum. Paris: Antoine Augereau for himself and Simon de Colines, 1534. 4° Exhortation sur ces sainctes parolles de nostre seigneur Jesus. E 72 Exhortation sur ces sainctes parolles de nostre Seigneur Jesu. Retournez vous, et croyes à l’evangille: Prinse sur la saincte escripture, en laquelle est declaire lefficace de l’evangile. [Neuchâtel?: Pierre de Vingle, 1534?]. 8° [Farel, Guillaume]. F 28 Summaire et briefve declaration daulcuns lieux fort necessaire à ung chascun chrestien pour mettre sa confiance en Dieu et ayder son prochain. . . . Item ung traite du Purgatoire nouvellement adiouste sur la fin. [Neuchâtel: Pierre de Vingle], 23 December 1534. 8° Introduction les enfants. I 48 Introduction pour les enfans. Antwerp: Martin Lempereur, [1534?]. 8° [Luther, Martin. Melanchthon, Philipp. Cranach Lucas (ill.)]. L 94 Les faictz de Jesus Christ et du Pape, par lesquelz chascun pourra facilement congnoistre la grande difference de entre eulx: nouvellement reveuz, corrigez, et augmentez, selon la verite de la saincte Escripture, et des droictz canons. [Neuchâtel: Pierre de Vingle, 1534?]. 2° [Luther, Martin. Farel, Guillaume]. Chrysostom, St. John. [Et al.]. L 100 Le livre de vraie et parfaicte oraison. Antwerp: Martin Lempereur, July 1534. 8° [Marcourt, Antoine]. M 18 Articles veritable sur les horribles, grandz et importables abuz de la Messe papalle: inventee directement contre la saincte Cene de Jesus Christ. [Neuchâtel: Pierre de Vingle, 1534?]. Placard [Marcourt, Antoine. Viret, Pierre]. M 19 Declaration de la Messe, Le fruict dicelle, La cause, et le moyen, pourquoi et comment on la doibt maintenir. [Neuchâtel: Pierre de Vingle, 1534?]. 8° [Marcourt, Antoine]. M 24 Le livre des marchans, fort utile à toutes gens, pour congnoistre de quelles marchandises on se doit garder destre trompe. Lequel a este nouvellement reveu et fort augmente, par son premier autheur, bien expert en tel affaire. [Neuchâtel: Pierre de Vingle], 30 December 1534. 16° [Marcourt, Antoine]. M 29 Petit traicte tres utile, et salutaire de la saincte eucharistie de nostre Seigneur Jesuchrist. Audiens sapiens, sapientior erit. Proverb. i. [Neuchâtel: Pierre de Vingle], 16 November 1534. 8° Numerus et tituli cardinalium. Numerus et tituli cardinalium, achiepiscoporum et episcoporum. Taxae et valor beneficiorum regni Galliae cum taxis cancellariae apostolicae, necnon sacrae

678

appendix b

poenitentiariae itidem apostolicae. Paris: Antoine Augereau for Galiot Du Pré, 11 April 1534. 8° Ovid. Marot, Clément (tr. and auth). Le Premier Livre de la Metamorphose d’Ovid . . . Item Certaines oeuvres qu’il feit en prison, non encores imprimeez. Paris: Etienne Roffet, 1534. 8° Petit, Guillaume. P 12 Tres devotes oraisons à l’honneur de la tressacree et glorieuse Vierge Marie mere de dieu, avec plusieurs aultres devotes chansons. Paris: Simon de Colines, [1534?]. 8° Prosper of Aquitaine, St. Opuscula de gratia et libero arbitrio sancti Properi Aquitani, episcopi Reginensis. religiosissimi, Diui Augustini Discipluli et in diuinis scripturis eruditissimi. “Paris”: “Antoine Augereau” [Ottaviano Scoto], 1534. 8° Prosper of Aquitaine, St. Prosperi presbyteri aquitani aduesrus inimicos gratiae dei libellus, in quo sententia D. A. Augustini, de gratia et libero arbitrio ex scripturis defenditur. Paris: Antoine Augereau, 1534. 8° Prosper of Aquitaine, St. Sancti Prosperi de gratia et libero arbitrio ad Rufinum epistola. Paris: Antoine Augereau, 1534. 8° Prosper of Aquitaine, St. D. roseri Aquitanici epigrammata super divi Aurelii Augustini sententias quasdam exarata. Paris: Antoine Augereau, 1534. 8° Quarte gallicane. En ce present liure est la description de la quarte Galicane. . . . Comment vng roy est cree empereur: En deux manieres. “Lyon: Jean Mentcel de Sconlu” [false addresss], 11 August 1534. 4° Rabelais, François. Pantagrueline prognostication, certaine, veritable, et infalible, pour l’an MDXXXV. Nouvellement composée au profit et advisement de gens estroudis et musars de nature, par maistre Alcofribas, architriclin dudict Pantagruel. [Lyon: François Juste, 1534?]. 8° Remonstrance de la vertu insuperable et fruits inestimables de la foy. La Remonstrance de la vertu insuperable et fruits inestimables de la foi chrestienne. S.l.n., [submitted for censure 15 December 1534]. Salmon, Jean (Macrin). Salmoni Macrini Iuliodunensis, subicularii regii, Elegiarum, Epigrammatum, et Odarum, libri tres. Paris: Antione Augereau, 1534. 4° Sept assaults. Les sept assaults. S.l.n., [submitted for censure 15 December 1534]. Verger flourissant. V3 Vergier Flourissant ou l’ame fidele, remply de fleurs Mistiques odoriferantes. Antwerp: Martin Lempereur, 1534. 8°

books related to the navarrian network

679

1535 Barril, Jean. A tres illustre et puissante princesse et dame, Marguerite de France, Royne de Navarre, Duchesse d’Alençon, et de Berry. Toulouse: Eustache Mareschal, 1535. 4° Bible. [Olivétan, Pierre Robert (tr.). Calvin, Jean (preface). Des Périers, Bonaventure (prefatory material).] B 40 La Bible Qui est toute la Saicte escripture en laquelle sont contenus, le Vieil Testament et le Nouveau, translatez en Francois. Le Vieil, de lebrieu: et le Nouveau, du Grec. Neuchâtel: Pierre de Vingle, 4 June 1535. 2° Bible. N.T. Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques (tr.). B 168 Le nouveau Testament, auquel est demonstre Jesu Christ sauver du monde, estre venu annonce de Dieu à noz Peres anciens des le commencement du monde, et en plusieurs lieux predict par les Prophetes. Antwerp: Martin Lempereur, 1535. 8° Chansons. [Malingre, Matthieu (ed?)]. C 99 Chansons Nouvelles demonstrantz plusieurs erreurs et faulsetez, desquelles le paovre monde est remply par les ministres de Satan. [Geneva: Wigand Koeln, 1535?]. 8° Dolet, Étienne. S. D. dialogus de imitatione ciceroniana, adversus Desiderium Erasmum, pro Christophoro Longolio. Lyon: s.n., 1535. 4° [Farel, Guillaume]. F 17 Letres certaines daucuns grandz troubles et tumultes advenuz à Geneve, avec la disputation faicte l’an 1534. [Neuchâtel: Pierre de Vingle], 1 April 1535. 16° Francis I. Lettres patentes du Roy nostre sire Contre les Lutheriens et Placardeurs, auec promesse de bon guerdon aux reuelateurs. Publiees a Lyon, le. xxie. iour de May. Mil. CCCCCxxxiiii. Lyon: s.n., 1535 n.s. 8° Gacy, Jean. G1 La deploration de la Cite de Genefve sur le faict des hereticques qui l’ont Tiranniquement opprimee. [Lyon?: Pierre de Sainte-Lucie?, 1535?]. 4° Hangest, Jérôme de. H1 Contre les tenebrions lumière évangelicque. On les vend à Paris en la rue SaintJacques à la Fleur de lis. Secunde et ampliée édition. Paris: Guillaume de Bossozel and Jean Petit, 15 January 1535. 8° Hangest, Jérôme de. De Christifera Eucharistia adversus nugiferos symbolistas. Paris: Jean Petit, [c. 29 December 1534]. 4° [Marguerite de Navarre]. Le caresme prenant du cueur bienheueux. S.l.n., [1535?]. 8° Marguerite de Navarre. [Heyden, Gaspar van der]. Marot, Clément. M 39 Le miroir de treschrestienne princesse Marguerite. [Paris: Nicolas Buffet, 1535?]. 8°

680

appendix b

Ordonnances contre les imitateurs de la secte lutherienne. O 12 Ordonnances nouvelles nagueres faictes . . . contre les imitateurs de la secte lutherienne et recellateurs diceulx. Et aussi touchant les denonciateurs et accusateurs. Paris: [Nicolas Couteau] and Jean André, 5 February 1535 n.s. 4° Procession générale a Paris, 21 January 1534. [Du Bellay, Jean?]. P 43 L’Ordre de la procession generale celebree a Paris, Le Roi estant en personne. Le xxi. jour de janvier. Mille. cinq centz, trente et cinq. [Paris: Vve. Pierre Roffet], 22 January 1535. 8° Procession générale a Paris, 21 January 1534. [Du Bellay, Jean?]. P 44 L’Ordre de la procession generalle celebree à Paris, le .xxi. jour de Janvier Mil cincq cens trentequatre en l’honneur de Dieu et reverence du sainct sacrement. Paris: Vve. Pierre Roffet, 1535. 8° Rabelais, François. Almanach pour l’an 1535, calculé sur la noble cité de Lyon, à l’elevation du Pole par XLV degrez xv minutes en en Latitude, et xxvi en Longitude, Par Maistre François Rabelais, Docteur en Medecine et Medecin du grand Hospital dudit Lyon. [Lyon?]: s.n., 1535. Rabelais, François. R 14 Gargantua. [Lyon: François Juste, 1535?]. 8° Rufinus of Aquileia. Seyssel, Claude de (tr.). [Colin, Jacques (ed?)]. L’Histoire ecclesiastique en deux livres qui suivent celle d’Eusebe, depuis Constantin jusqu’à la mort de Theodose le Grand, traduite du Latin en Francois, par Messire Claude de Seyssel. S.l.n., 1535. 8° 1536 Bourbon, Nicolas. N.B. opusculum puerile ad pueros de moribus, sive Paidagogeion. Lyon: Sébastien Gryphe, 1536. 4° Bourbon, Nicolas. Paidagogeion. Lyon: s.n., 1536. 8° [Dentière, Marie (attributed)]. D5 La Guerre et deslivrance de la ville de Geneve. [Geneva: Wigand Koeln?, 1536?]. 4° Dolet, Étienne. Et al. Recueil de vers latin et vulgaires de plusieurs poëtes francoys composés sur le trespas de feu Monsieur le Daulphin. Lyon: François Juste, 1536. 8° [Farel, Guillaume]. F6 Confession de la Foi, laquelle tous Bourgeois et habitans de Geneve et sujects du pay doivent jurer de garder et tenir, extraicte de l’instruction dont on use en l’eglise de ladicte ville. [Geneva: Wigand Koeln, 1536?]. 8° Huet, Charles (La Huiterie). Protologies françoises de Charles de la Huterie. Orthodoxes commentaires sommairement detestans aucunes dernieres frivolles opinions. Avec brief epitome des gestes presens en rythme leonine. Contre-blason de la beaulté des membres du corps humain. Paris: [Olivier Mallard], 1 July 1536. 16°

books related to the navarrian network

681

Le Blond, Jean. Le printemps de l’Humble espérant, aultrement dict Jean Le Blond, où sont comprins plusieurs petitz oeuvres semez de fleurs, fruicts et verdure qu’il a composez en son jeune aage, fort recreatifz, comme on pourra veoir à la table. Paris: Arnoul Langelier, 1536. 8° Lescagne, Tristan de. Disputation entre homme et Raison. Compose nouvellement à lonneur de la Glorieuse Vierge Marie, Mere de Dieu. Paris: Denis Janot and Pierre Sergent, [c. 1535]. 8° Marot, Clément. Epistre à Monseigneur le Dauphin. S.l.n., [1536]. 8° Visagier, Jean (Vulteius, Voulté). I. Vulteii epigrammatum libri duo. Lyon: s.n., 1536. 8° Zwingli, Ulrich. Christianae fidei Huldrycho Zvinglio praedicatae, brevis et clara expositio ab ipso Zuinglio paulo ante mortem eius ad Regem Christianum scripta, hactenus a nemine excusa et nunc primum in lucem aedita. Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1536. 8° 1537 Apologie faicte par le grant abbé des Conards. Appologie faicte par le grant abbe des Conards Sur les inuectiues Sagon, Marot, La Huterie, pages, valetz, braquetz, etc. Paris: [Pierre Vidoue, c. 1537]. 8° Aristotle. Roussel, Gérard (tr.). Clichtove, Josse (comm.). Opus Magnorum Moralium Aristotelis, duos libros completens, Girardo Ruffo Vacariensi Interprete, cum annotationibus, doctissimi viri Jodoci Clichtovei Neoportuensis, nunc vigilanter aliquot in locis mendis purgatum. Paris: Prigent Calvarini, 1537. 8° Bancquet d’honneur sur la Paix faicte entre Clement Marot et François Sagon. Le bancquet d’honneur sur la Paix faicte entre Clement Marot, Francoys Sagon, Fripelippes, Hueterie et aultres de leurs ligues Nouuellement imprime. S.l.n., 1537. Beaulieu, Eustorg de. Les divers rapportz, contenantz plusieurs rondeaulx, huictains, dixains, ballades sur divers propos, chansons, epistres. Le tout composé par M. E. de Beaulieu. Lyon: Pierre de Sainte-Lucie, 1537. 8° Campen, Jean van. [Bucer, Martin (pref.)]. Athanasius, St. C 84 Paraphrase, c’est à dire, Claire et succincte Interpretation juxte la sentence, non pas jouxte la lettre, sur tous les Psalmes, selon la verité Hebraique . . . Traictie du sainct Athanase. Antwerp: Vve. Martin Lempereur, 1537. 16° Castiglione, Baldessare. Colin, Jacques (tr.). [Chaperon, Jean (tr?)]. Le Courtisan, nouvellement traduict de langue Ytalique en vulgaire Françoys par Jacques Colin. Paris: Jean Longis and Vincent Sertenas, 1537. 8°

682

appendix b

[Colet, Claude]. Remonstrance a sagon, a la huterie, et au Poete Campestre, par maistre daluce Locet, Pamanchoys. On la vend au mont sainct Hylaire, Deuant le College de Reims. [Paris?]: s.n., [1537]. 4° [Colin, Germain]. Epistre envoyee a Clement Marot et Francoys Sagon tendant a leur paix. Paris: [Vivant Gaultherot and Pierre Vidoue, 1537]. 8° Contre Sagon et les siens. Contre Sagon et les siens, épistre nouvelle faicte par ung amy de Clémenet Marot. Paris: s.n., [1537]. 8° Corrozet, Gilles. Dolet, Étienne (tr.). Deploration sur le trespas de Magdaleine de France royne Descoce. Paris: Jean André, Gilles Corrozet, [Denis Janot, and Olivier Mallard, c. 1537]. 8° [Des Périers, Bonaventure] “Maistre Sarcomoros.” La prognostication des prognostications, non seulement de ceste presente annee M.D.XXXVII. Mais aussi des aultres à venir, voire de toutes celles qui sont passees, Composee par Maistre Sarcomoros, natif de Tartarie, et Secretaire du tresillustre et trespuissant Roy de Cathai, serf de Vertus. [Paris: Jean Morin], 1537. 12° Différent de Clément Marot et de Sagon. Différent de Clément Marot et de Sagon. S.l.n., [1537]. Elegie par François de Sagon. Elegie par Francoys de Sagon se complaignant a luy mesmes daucuns qui ne prennent bien lintention de son Coup d’essay, dont il frappa Marot. S.l.n., [1537]. 8° Epistre à Marot, à Sagon, et à La Hueterie. Epistre a Marot, a Sagon, et a la Huterie. Paris: [Pierre Vidoue, c. 1537]. 8° Epistre responsive au rabais de Sagon. Epistre responsiue au Rabais de Sagon. Ensemble vne aultre Epistre faicte par deux amys de Clement Marot. Paris: [Pierre Vidoue, c. 1537]. 8° [Erasmus, Desiderius] Saliat, Pierre (tr.). E 25 Declamation contenant la maniere de bien instruire les enfans . . . avec ung petit traicté de la civilité puerile. Paris: Simon de Colines, 2 August 1537. 8° Erasmus, Desiderius. Morin, Guy (tr.). E 42 Le Preparatif à la mort. Livre tres utille et necessaire à chascun Chrestien. Paris: Olivier Mallard for Galliot Du Pré, 1537. 16° Erasmus, Desiderius. E 41 Préparation à la mort, autrefois composée en latin . . . et maintenant traduicte en françoys. Lyon: François Juste, 1537. 16° Fontaine, Charles. Des Périers, Bonaventure. Glotelet, Nicole. Les disciples et Amys de Marot contre Sagon, La Hueterie, et leurs adherentz. Paris: Jean Morin, 1537. 8° Fontaine, Charles. Response a Charles Huet, dit Hueterie, qui feit du mytouart le Grys, par C. de la fontaine. [Lyon]: s.n., [1537]. 8° Le frotte groing du Sagouin. Le frotte groing du Sagouyn. Auec scholies exposantz l’artifice. Paris: Jean Morin, 1537. 8°

books related to the navarrian network

683

Hangest, Jérôme de. H2 En controversie voie seure. Paris: Jean Petit, 27 January 1537 n.s. 8° Huet, Charles (La Huiterie). Responce à Marot, dict Fripelippes et à son Maistre Clement. Paris: Jean Luquet, [1537]. 8° Marot, Clément. Le Dieu gard de Marot à son retour de Ferrare en France avecques la triumphe des tiroletz ou est comprins les neuf preuses. Les devis de deux amans et plusieurs ballades rondeaux, espitres, disains, huictains et quatrains ensemble la chanson de Hesdin. Paris: [Pierre Sergent, 1537]. Marot, Clément. Le dieu gard, De Clement Marot. [Rouen]: Jean Lhomme, 9 May 1537. 8° Marot, Clément. Le Valet de Marot contre Sagon, Cum Commento. Paris: Jean Morin, 1537. Marot, Clément. Le valet de Marot contre Sagon. Lyon: Pierre de Sainte-Lucie, [1537]. 8° Marot et Sagon les treves. De Marot et Sagon les treues. Donnez iusqua la fleur des febves. Par lauctorite de Labbe des Conardz. Le secretaire des Conardz. [Paris]: s.n., [1537]. 8° [Olivétan, Pierre Robert]. O6 L’instruction dés enfans, contenant la maniere de prononcer et escrire en françois. L’oraison de Jesus Christ. La salutation angelicque. Avec la declaration d’iceux, faicte en maniere de recueil dés seulles sentences de l’escriture saincte. Geneva: Jean Girard, 1537. 8° Papillon, Almanque. Fontaine, Charles. La victoire et triumphe d’Argent contre Cupido Dieu d’amours [by Papillon] avec la responce [by Charles Fontaine]. Lyon: s.n., 1537. 16° Pour les disciples de Marot. Pour les disciples de Marot. Le page de Sagon parle a eulx. [Paris]: s.n., [1537]. 8° Pratin, Louis. Deffence des escriptz de Sagon, a luy enuoyee pour estreines, de par Loys Pratin. S.l.n., [End of 1537]. Premiere lecon des matines ordinaires du grand Abbé des Conardz de Rouen. La premiere lecon des matines ordinaires du grand abbe des conardz de Rouen, souuerain monarcque de lordre contre la response faicte par ung coueur a lapologie dudicz abbe. S.l.n., [1537]. Rabelais, François. Pantagrueline prognostication, certaine, veritable, et infalible, pour l’an M.D.xxxvii. Lyon: François Juste, 1537. 16° Replicque par les amis de l’auctheur de la Remonstrance faicte a Sagon. Replicque par les Amys de lauctheur de la Remonstrance faicte a Sagon, contre celuy qui ce [sic] dict Amy de l’imprimeur du Coup d’essay, ensemble Responce a Nicolas Denisot qui blasma Marot en vers enragez a la fin du Rabais. [Paris: Pierre Gromors, c. 1537]. 8°

684

appendix b

Rescript à François Sagon. Rescript A Françoys Sagon & au ieune poete Champestre facteur de la geneaologie de Frippelippes, auecques vng Rondeau faict par Clement Marot dudict ieune poete. S.l.n., 1537. 4° Responce à l’Abbé des Conars de Rouen. Marot, Clément (poem). Responce a Labbe des Conars de Rouen. Paris: Jean Morin, 1537. 4° Sagon, François. Le coup dessay de Francoys de Sagon Secretaire de l’abbe de Sainct Eburoul. Contenant la responce a deux epistres de Clement Marot reitre a Ferrare. L’une adressante au Roy treschrestien. L’autre a deux damoyselles seurs. Vela Deqvoy. Paris: s.n., 1537. 8° Sagon, François. Deffense de Sagon contre Clement Marot. S.l.n., [1537]. 8° Sagon, François. Epistre a Marot par Francois de Sagon pour luy monstre que Frippelipes auoit faict torte comparaison des quatre raisons dudit Sagon a quatre Oysons. Paris: s.n., 1537. 8° Sagon, François. Le rabais de caquet de Fripelippes et de Marot dict Rat pele adictione Auec le comment. S.l.n., [1537]. 4° Salmon, Jean (Macrin). Hymnorum libri sex, ad Jo. Bellaium. Paris: Robert Estienne, 1537. 8° Salmon, Jean (Macrin). Odarum libri sex. Lyon: s.n., 1537. 8° [Vauzelles, Mathieu or Macé de]. La Grande Genealogie de Frippelippes. Composee par vng ieune Poete champestre. Auecques vne Epistre adressant le tout à Francoys Sagon. Paris: [Pierre Gromors, 1537]. 8° Visagier, Jean (Vulteius, Voulté). Joannis Vulteii, . . . Epigrammatum libri IIII. Eiusdem Xenia. Lyon: Michel Parmanteri, 1537. 8° Visagier, Jean (Vulteius, Voulté). Oratio funebris a Jo. Vulteio de Iac. Minutio Tholosae habita. Lyon: Jean Barbou, 1537. 8° 1538 Abouchement de nostre sainct pere le Pape, Lempereur et le Roy. A4 L’Abouchement de nostre sainct pere le Pape, Lempereur et le Roi, faicte à Nice, avec les Articles de la trefve. Lyon: François Juste, 1538. 8° Bible. Holbein, Hans (ill.). Biblia sacra. Lyon: Gaspar and Melchior Trechsel for Hugues de La Porte, père, 1538. 2° Bible. N.T. Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques (tr.). B 173 Le nouveau Testament, auquel est demonstre Jesu Chrsit sauver du monde estre venu annonce de Dieu à noz Peres anciens des le commencement du

books related to the navarrian network

685

monde . . . Avec la declaration des oeuvres par lesquelles l’home peult estre congneu. Antwerp: Jean Steelius, 1538. 16° Bible. N.T. Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques (tr.). B 170 Le nouveau Testament, de nostre Seigneur Jesu Christ. Antwerp: Matthieu Crom, 1538. 8° Bible. N.T. Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques (tr.). B 172 Le Nouveau Testament, de nostre Seigneur Jesu Christ seul sauveur du monde . . . avec lés figures dés Actes dés apostres et de l’Apocalypse. Item . . . lés Epistres du vieil testament. Antwerp: Guillaume Du Mont, 1538. 16° Bible. N.T. Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques (tr.). B 171 Le Nouveau testament, de nostre Seigneur Jesu Christ, seul sauveur du monde. Antwerp: Vve. Martin Lempereur, 1538. 16° Bourbon, Nicolas. Vandoperani Lingonensis, Nugarum Libri Octo. Ab autore recens aucti et recogniti. Lyon: Sébastien Gryphe, 1538. 8° Castiglione, Baldessare. Colin, Jacques (tr.). [Chaperon, Jean (tr?)]. SaintGelais, Mellin de (ed.). Dolet, Étienne (ed.). Le courtisan nouvellement de messire Baltazar de Catillon, nouvellement reveu et corrigé. Lyon: s.n., 1538. 8° Conversion des Luthériens. C 133 La conversion et revocation des Lutheriens faicte en Alemaigne presens les ambassadeurs du pape de l’empereur et du roi de Hongrie avec une oraison du sainct sacrement de laustel. Rouen: Guillaume de La Motte, 20 July 1538. 8° Cymbalum Mundi. [Des Périers, Bonaventure?]. C 137 Cymbalum mundi en françois contenant quatre Dialogues Poetiques, fort antiques, joeux, et facetieux. Lyon: Benoist Bonnyn, 1538. 8° Cymbalum Mundi. [Des Périers, Bonaventure?]. C 138 Cymbalum mundi en françois, contenant quatre Dialogues Poetiques, fort antiques, joeux, et facetieux. Paris: Jean Morin, [February] 1538. 8° Dolet, Étienne. Carminum Libri Quatuor. Lyon: Sébastien Gryphe for Étienne Dolet, 1538. 4° Dolet, Étienne. Cato christianus, id est Decalogi expositio. Lyon: For Estienne Roffet, 1538. 8° Erasmus, Desiderius. E 43 Preparation à la mort. Lyon: Jean Barbou for Guillaume de Guelques, 1538. 16° Farel, Guillaume. F 20 L’Ordre et maniere qu’on tient en administrant les sainctz sacremens: assavoir, le Baptesme, et la Cene de nostre Seigneur. Item, en la celebration du mariage, et en la visitation des malades. [Geneva]: Jean Michel, 1538. 8° [Heyden, Gaspar van der]. H 13 D’ung seul mediateur et advocat entre Dieu et les hommes notre Seigneur Jesus Christ. Geneva: Jean Girard, 1538. 8° Images de la mort. Holbein, Hans (ill.). Vauzelles, Jean de. I6 Les simulachres et faces hystoriées de la Mort. Paris: Denis Janot, [1538?]. 16° Images de la mort. Holbein, Hans (ill.). Vauzelles, Jean de. I5 Les simulachres et historiees faces de la mort, autant, elegamment pourtaictes, que artificiellement imaginées. Lyon: Melchior and Gaspar Trechsel for Jean and François Frellon, 1538. 4°

686

appendix b

Instruction des enfants. [Luther, Martin. Farel, Guillaume]. I 49 Introduction pour les enfans. Recogneue et corrigee à Lovain. Antwerp: Vve. Martin Lempereur, 1538. 8° [Luther, Martin. Farel, Guillaume]. Chrysostom, St. John. [Et al.]. L 101 Le livre de vraie et parfaicte oraison. Antwerp: Jean Steelius, 1538. 16° Marguerite de Navarre. [Heyden, Gaspar van der]. Marot, Clément. M 40 Le miroir de treschrestienne princesse Marguerite de France . . . auquel elle voit et son neant, et son tout. Lyon: Pierre de Sainte-Lucie, 1538. 8° Marot, Clément. Le Dieu gard. [Paris: Antoine Bonnemère, 1538]. 8° Marot, Clément. Les Oeuvres de Clement Marot de Cahors, valet de chambre du Roy. Augmentées de deux Livres d’Epigrammes, Et d’ung grand nombre d’aultres Oeuvres par cy devant non imprimées. Le tout songeusement par luy mesmes reveu, et mieulx ordonné. Lyon: Étienne Dolet, [31 July] 1538. 8° Marot, Clément. Les Oeuvres de Clement Marot. [Lyon: Sébastien Gryphe, 1538]. Petit, Guillaume. Le Viat de Salut, auquel est comprins lesposition du symbol, des dix commandemens de la Loi, du Pater noster, Et Ave Maria. Livre tres salutaire pour ung chascun chrestien. Paris: Olivier Mallard, 1538. Rabelais, François. Pantagrueline prognostication, certaine, veritable, et infallible. Pour l’an M.D.XXXVIII. S.l.n., [1538]. 16° Sadoleto, Jacopo. Bourbon, Nicolas. Jacobi Sadoleti de Laudibus philosophiae: libri duo. Lyon: Sébastien Gryphe, 1538. 4° Salmon, Jean (Macrin). Septem Psalmi in lyricos numeros, paraphrasticos versi. Eiusdem Paeanum libri quatuor. Poitiers: Marnef, 1538. 8° [Saulnier, Antoine]. S4 L’Ordre et maniere d’enseigner en la ville de Genéve, au College. Description de la ville de Genéve. Geneva: Jean Girard, 12 January 1538. 8° Visagier, Jean (Vulteius, Voulté). Io. Vulteii, . . . Hendacasyllaborum libri quatuor. Ad poetas Gallicos libri duo. Ad Franciscum Boherum episc. Macloviensium item libri duo. Paris: Simon de Colines, 1538. 12° Visagier, Jean (Vulteius, Voulté). Joan.Vulteii, . . . Inscriptionum libri duo ad Aegidium Boherum archid. Rhemens. et Aven. Ad Barot. Castellanum Nicaeum Xeniorum libellus. Paris: Simon de Colines, 1538. 16° 1539 Aneau, Barthélemy. A9 Chant natal contenant sept noelz, ung chant Pastoural, et ung chant Royal, auec ung Mystere de la Natiuité, par personnages. Composez en imitation

books related to the navarrian network

687

uerbale et musicale de diuerses chansons, Recueilliz sur l’escripture saincte, & d’icelle illustrez. Lyon: Sebastien Gryphe, 1539. 4° Bible. O.T. Psalms. Marot, Clément (tr.). Calvin, Jean (tr.). B 82 Aulcuns pseaulmes et cantiques mys en chant. Strasbourg: [Johann Knobloch Jr.], 1539. 8° Bible. O.T. Psalms. Olivétan, Pierre Robert (tr.). Beaulieu, Eustorg de (tr.). B 81 Les Psalmes de David translatez d’Ebrieu en langue françoyse. [Geneva: Jean Girard], 1539. 8° Bible. O.T. Psalms. Marot, Clement (tr.). Psaulmes de Clement Marot. [Geneva: Jean Girard, before 1 May 1539]. Bible. O.T. Solomon. Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques (tr.). B 147 Les sentences de Solomon, doctrine tressalutaire à tous vrais enfans de Dieu, desyrans estre instruictz en toutes bonnes meurs: translatez selon la verite Hebraicque. Antwerp: Vve. Martin Lempereur, 1539. 16° Bible. N.T. Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques (tr.). B 175 Le Nouveau Testament auquel est demonstre Jhesu Christ nostre Sauveur, et en plusieurs lieux predict par les prophetes, avec la declaration des oeuvres et myracles qu’il a fait. Antwerp: Jean de Liesvelt, 13 November 1539. 16° Bodius, Hermann [Bucer, Martin?]. B 214 La premiere Partie de Lunion de plusieurs passaiges de lescritpure saincte. Livre treutile à tous amateurs de paix: Extraict des autenticques docteurs de l’eglise chrestienne . . . reveu et corrige. [Geneva: Jean Michel], 1539. 8° Bodius, Hermann [Bucer, Martin?]. Saulnier, Antoine (dedication). B 215 La seconde partie de Lunion de plusieurs passages de l’escripture saincte: Livre tresutile à tous amateurs de verite, extraicte de principaulx docteurs de l’eglise de la foi Catholicque. [Geneva: Jean Michel], 31 July 1539. 8° Bourbon, Nicolas. N.B. Commentarius captae Urbis. Item de origine Turcarum Io. G. Egnatii. Paris: s.n., 1539. 8° Bourbon, Nicolas. Tabellae elementariae pueris ingenuis pernecessariae. Paris: Simon de Colines, 1539. 8° Bourbon, Nicolas. Tabellae elementariae pueris ingenuis pernecessariae, Nicolao Borbonio, Bandoperano, Lingone poeta, auctore apud. Joann. et Franc. Frellaeos [sic] fratres. Lyon: Jean and François Frellon, 1539. 8° Confession de foi. C 128 La confession de Foi faicte par le Chrestien joieux en Christ: laquelle il tient pour son testament et ordonnance de derniere volunte. [Geneva: Jean Michel], 1539. 8° Dentière, Marie. D4 Epistre tresuitle envoiée à la Roine de Navarre seur du Roi de France, contre les Turcz, Juifz, Infideles, Faulz Chrestiens, Anabaptistes, et Lutheriens. “Antwerp” [Geneva]: “Martin Lempereur” [Jean Girard], 1539. 8°

688

appendix b

Dolet, Étienne. Francisci Valessi Gallorum regis Fata. Ubi rem omnem celebriorem a Gallis gestam nosces, ab anno Christi M.D.XIII. usque ad annum ineuntem M.D.XXXIX. Stephano Doleto Gallo Aurelio autore. Lyon: For Estienne Roffet, 1539. 4° Dolet, Étienne. Genethliacum Claudii Doleti S. D. filii, autore patre. Lyon: s.n., 1539. 4° Dolet, Étienne. L’avant naissance de Claude Dolet, filz de E. D., premierement composée en latin par le pere, et maintenant par ung sien ami traduicte en langue françoyse. Lyon: s.n., 1539. 4° [Du Pinet, Antoine. Lambert, François. Meyer, Sebastien.] D 100 Familiere et briefve exposition sur l’apocalypse de Sainct Jehan l’apostre. Geneva: Jean Girard, 1539. 8° Du Saix, Antoine. Petitz fatras dung Apprentis surnome Lesperonnier de discipline. Quoy quil aduienne. Lyon: Olivier Arnoullet, 8 February 1539 n.s. 8° Erasmus, Desiderius. Morin, Guy (tr.). E 44 Le Preparatif à la mort . . . Adjoustee une instruction chrestienne pour bien vivre, et soi preparer à mourir. Paris: Galliot Du Pré, 1539. 16° Erasmus, Desiderius. Morin, Guy (tr.). E 45 Le Preparatif à la mort . . . Adjoustée une instruction chrestienne pour bien vivre, et soi preparer à mourir. Paris: Vincent Sertenas and Jean Longis, 1539. 16° Exposition faicte par mainere d’exhortation et d’oraison prinse sur le Pater Noster. [Luther, Martin]. E 76 Breve exposition faicte par mainere d’exhortation et d’oraison prinse sur le Pater noster, et aultres parolles de nostre Seigneur Jesus Christ, recitées au 6. chapitre de sainct Matthieu. [Geneva: Jean Girard], 1539. 8° Breve Instruction pour soy confesser. I 58 Breve instruction faicte par maniere de Lettre missive: pour se confesser en verité. [Geneva: Jean Girard], 1539. 8° Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques. Liège, Jean (tr.). L 18 Comtemplations tres salutaires d’innocence perdue, de vraie patience, du conflit continuel de la chair et l’ame, de la Vierge Marie, avec une oraison à Dieu pour la paix et union de nostre mere l’eglise. Lyon: François Juste, 1539. 8° [Luther, Martin]. Du Pinet, Antoine (tr.) L 87 Exposition de l’histoire des dix Lepreux, prinse du dixseptiesme de Sainct Luc. Ou est amplement traicté de la confession auriculaire: et comme on peut user d’allegories en la saincte Escripture. [Geneva: Jean Girard], 1539. 8° [Luther, Martin. Farel, Guillaume]. Chrysostom, St. John. [Et al.]. L 102 Le livre de vraie et parfaicte oraison. Paris: Jean Foucher, Vivant Gaultherot, and Nicolas Gilles, 1539. 16° Marguerite de Navarre. [Heyden, Gaspar van der]. Marot, Clément. M 41 Le miroir de treschrestienne princesse Marguerite de France . . . auquel elle voit et son neant, et son tout. Geneva: Jean Girard, 1539. 8°

books related to the navarrian network

689

Marot, Clément. L’adolescence clementine . . . Reveues et corrigées selon la copie de sa derniere recongoissance, oultre toutes aultres impressions par cy devant faictez. La Suite de ladolescence clementine reveue, cest asscavoir, les Elegies de Clement Marot. Antwerp: Guillaume Du Mont for Jean Steelsius, 1539. 8° Marot, Clément. Eglogue faicte par Marot et par luy au roy presentée. S.l.n., [1539]. 8° [Papillon, Almanque? Marot, Clément?]. M 43 La Bergerie du bon pasteur. [Geneva: Jean Michel, 1539?]. Petrarch, Francesco. Marot, Clément (tr.). Six sonnets de Petrarque. Paris: Gilles Corrozet, [c. 1539]. 18° Plusieurs traictez par aucuns nouveaux poetes du differend Sagon. Plusieurs traictez par aucuns nouveaulx poetes du different de M., Sagon et la Hueterie, avec le Dieu gard dudict M. epistre composée par M. de la veue du roy et de l’empereur. Paris: s.n., 1539. 16° Sermon pour le jour de la Dedicace. [Marot, Clément?]. S 14 Sermon notable pour le jour de la Dedicace. [Geneva: Jean Michel], 1539. 8° Somme de l’écriture. [Luther, Martin]. S 27 La Somme de l’escripture saincte, enseignant la vraie foi, par laquelle sommes justifiez. Et de la vertu du baptesme, selon la doctrine de l’evangile et des Apostres. Avec une information comme tous estatz doibvent vivre selon l’Evangile. [Geneva: Jean Michel], 5 May 1539. 8° Zwingli, Ulrich. Z1 Brieve et claire exposition de la Foi Chrestienne . . . escripte Au Roi Chrestien. [Geneva: Jean Michel], 1539. 8° 1540 Aretino, Pietro. Vauzelles, Jean de (tr.). A 13 La Passion de Jesuschrist, vifuement descript par le Divin engin de Pierre Aretin Italien: et Nouvellement traduicte en Francois. Avec privilege pour .III. ans. Lyon: Melchior and Gaspar Trechsel, 1 March 1540 n.s. 8° Aretino, Pietro. Vauzelles, Jean de (tr.). A 12 Trois livres de l’Humanite de Jesuchrist: divinement descripte, et au vif representée par Pierre Aretin Italien. Nouvellement traduictz en Francois 1539 Avec priviliege pour III ans. Lyon: Melchior and Gaspar Trechsel, 1 March 1540 n.s. 8° Augustine, St. De Spiritu et litera ad Marcellinum. Geneva: Michael Du Bois, 19 March 1540. 8° Baduel, Claude. De collegio et universitate Nemausensi. Lyon: Sébastien Gryphe, 1540. 8° Beaulieu, Eustorg de. Les divers Rapportz. Paris: Alain Lotrian, 1540. 8° Bible. O.T. Psalms. Aretino, Pietro (comm). Vauzelles, Jean de (tr.). B 83 Les sept Pseaulms de la penitence de David. Lyon: Sebastien Gryphe, 1540. 8°

690

appendix b

Bible. N.T. Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques (tr.). B 178 Le nouveau Testament de nostre Seigneur Jesu Christ, seul sauver du monde . . . avec lés figures dés Evangiles, et dés Actes et de L’apocalype. Item . . . les Epistres du vieil Testament. Antwerp: Guillaume Du Mont, 1540. 12° Bible. N.T. Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques (tr.). B 179 La premiere [-seconde] partie du Nouveau Testament. Lyon: Nicolas Petit, 1540. 8° Brodeau, Victor. B 266 Les louanges de Jesus Nostre Saulueur Oeuvre tresexcellent Divin et elegant. Compose par Maistre Victor Brodeau Secretaire et Varlet de chambre du Treschrestian Roi de France, Francois premier de ce nom. S.l.n., 1540. 8° Brodeau, Victor. B 267 Les Louanges de JesuChrist nostre Saulveur. Oeuvre treselegant et Divin. Lyon: Sulpice Sabon for Antione Constantin, 1540. 8° [Bucer, Martin]. B 278 Exposition de l’Evangile de nostre seigneur Jesus Christ, selon S. Matthieu. [Geneva: Jean Michel], 6 June 1540. 8° [Calvin, Jean. Marot, Clément]. La Manyere de faire prieres aux eglises Françoises, tant devant la predication comme apres, ensemble pseaulmes et cantiques francois qu’on chante aux dictes eglises. [Strasbourg?: Johann Knobloch, Jr.?], 1540. Calvin, Jean. Sadoleto, Jacopo. C 42 Epistre de Jaques Sadolet Cardinal envoiée au Senat et Peuple de Geneve: . . . Avec la Reponse de Jehan Calvin: translatées de Latin en François. Geneva: Michel Du Bois, 6 March 1540. 8° Confession de Beda. C 127 La confession et raison de la foi de Maistre Noel Beda, Docteur en theologie et Sindique de la sacree Universite à Paris: envoyee au treschrestien Roi de France, Francois premier de ce Nom. [Geneva: Jean Michel, 1540?]. 8° Dolet, Étienne. D 33 Les Gestes de François de Valois Roi de France. Dedans lequel oeuvre on peult congnoistre tout ce qui a esté faict par les Francois depuis 1513 jusques en 1539. Lyon: Étienne Dolet, 1540. 4° [Farel, Guillaume]. F 18 Letres certaines daucuns grandz troubles et tumultes advenuz à Geneve, avec la disputation faicte l’an 1534. [Geneva: Jean Michel, 1540?]. 8° Greban, Simon. G 24 Le premier [-second] volume du triumphant mystere des actes des Apostres. Paris: [Nicolas Couteau], Arnoul and Charles Langelier, and Guillaume Alabat (Bourges), 1540. 4° Instruction des enfants. I 51 Instruction pour les Chrestiens. S.l.n., [1540?]. 16° Instruction des enfants. [Luther, Martin. Farel, Guillaume]. Manutius, Aldus. Marot, Clément. I 50 Introduction pour les enfans, recogneue et corrigee à Louvain: Lan M.CCCCC. et xxxviii. Ou sont adjoustees de nouveau, une tresutile maniere de scavoir bien lire, et orthographier, par Alde. Et la doctrine pour bien et deuement

books related to the navarrian network

691

escripre selon la propriete du language fracois, par Clement Marot. Antwerp: Antoine Des Gois, 1540. 8° Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques. Commentarii in epistolas catholicas. Antwerp: Johannes Crinitus for Johannes Gymnicus, 1540. 8° Lescagne, Tristan de. L 59 Le Lys treschrestian florissant en la foy chrestiane. Paris: Denys Janot, 1540. 4° Longueil, Christophe de. Christophori Longolii Epistolarum libri IIII . . . item Petr. Bembi, Jac. Sadoleti, Gul. Budaei, Des. Erasmi, Epistolarum ad eundem Longolium liber I. Basel: J. Valderum, 1540. 8° Lunette des Chrétiens. L 78 La Lunette des Chrestiens par laquelle ils pourront facilement voir les raisons pour . . . moult miseres et calamitez. S.l.n., 1540? [Luther, Martin]. L 92 Exposition sur le deux Epistres de S. Pierre, et sur celle de S. Jude: en laquelle tout ce qui touche la doctrine Chrestienne est parfaictement compris. Avec un Sermon du vrai usage de la loi. [Geneva: Jean Michel], 1540. 8° [Luther, Martin. Melanchthon, Philipp. Cranach Lucas (ill.)]. L 95 Les faictz de Jesus Christ et du Pape, par lesquelz chascun pourra facilement congnoistre la grande difference dentre eulx: nouvellement reveuz, corrigez, et augmentez selon la verite de la saincte Escripture. [Geneva: Jean Michel, 1540?]. 4° [Luther, Martin. Farel, Guillaume]. Chrysostom, St. John. [Et al.]. L 103 Le livre de vraie et parfaicte oraison. Paris: Gilles Corrozet, 1540. 8° [Luther, Martin. Farel, Guillaume]. Chrysostom, St. John. [Et al.]. L 104 Le livre de vraie et parfaicte oraison. Paris: Jean Foucher, 1540. 16° [Luther, Martin. Farel, Guillaume]. Chrysostom, St. John. [Et al.]. L 105 Le livre de vraie et parfaicte oraison. Paris: Vve. Jean de Brie, 1540. 16° [Malingre, Matthieu]. M9 Moralite de la maladie de Chrestiente, a. xiii. personnages: en laquelle sont monstrez plusieurs abuz, aduenuz au monde, par la poison de peche et l’hypocrisie des hereticques. [Geneva: Jean Michel, 1540?]. 8° Marot, Clément. Cantiques de la paix. Paris: Étienne Roffet, [January1540 n.s.]. 8° [Oecolampadius, Johann]. O4 Exposition sur la premier epistre de S. Jehan Apostre, divisee par sermons tresutiles à tous amateurs de vraie et chrestienne predication. [Geneve: Jean Michel], 1540. 8° Salmon, Jean (Macrin). Hymnorum selectorum libri tres. Paris: Robert Estienne, 1540. 8° [Saulnier, Antoine]. S3 Chanson nouvelle. Composee sus les dix commandemens de Dieu extraicte de la saincte escripture. [Lyon: Jacques Moderne, 1540?]. 4° Sainte-Marthe, Charles de. La poesie francoise de Charles de Saincte Marthe, natif de Fontevrault en Poictou, divisee en trois livres. Le tout adressé à tresnoble et tresillustre princesse,

692

appendix b

Madame la duchesse d’Estampes, et contesse de Poictieure, plus un Livre de ses amys. Lyon: “Le Prince” [Claude Nourry], 1540. 8° Testament des patriarches. T2 Les testamentz de douze patriarches Enfans de Jakob. Antwerp: “Martin Lempereur” [Vve. Martin Lempereur?], 1540. 16° Vif sacrifice. V 23 Un Vif Sacrifice Quotidian, une saincte enflambée oraison, un doulx sacrifice. [Antwerp?: Vve. Martin Lempereur?, 1540?]. 16° [Vitrier, Jean]. V 50 Le Sermon que nostre Seigneur Jesuchrist feit en la montaigne, avec l’exposition contenant les huit beatitudes. Paris: Nicolas Gilles, Jean Foucher, Antoine Bonnemere, 1540. 16° 1541 Ambroise, St. De vocatione omnium gentium. Geneva: Michael Du Bois “Sylvius”, 1541. 8° Erasmus, Desiderius. Aneau, Barthélemy (tr.). E 23 Comedie ou dialogue matrimonial, exemplaire de paix en mariage, extraict du devis d’Erasme, Uxor memphigamos, C’est à dire: La femme mary plaignant, translaté de latin en françoys. Paris: Denis Janot, Jean Longis, and Vincent Serenas, 1541. 8° Bible. Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques (tr.). B 44 La sainct Bible en Francois. Antwerp: Antoine Des Gois and Antoine de La Haye, 12 January 1541. 2° Bible. O.T. Psalms. Marot, Clément (tr.). B 85 Psalmes de David, Translatez de plusieurs Autheurs, et principallement de Cle. Marot. Veu . . . et corrigé par lés theologiens. Antwerp: Antoine Des Gois, 1541. 8° Bible. O.T. Psalms. Marot, Clément (tr.). B 86 Psalmes de David, Translatez de plusieurs Autheurs, et principallement de Cle. Marot . . . Sermon du bon et mauvais pasteur. Antwerp: Antoine Des Gois, 1541. 8° Bible. O.T. Psalms. Aretino, Pietro (comm). Vauzelles, Jean de (tr.). B 88 Les sept Pseaulms de la penitence de David. Paris: Denis Janot, 1541. 8° Bible. O.T. Psalms. Marot, Clément (tr.). B 90 Trente Pseaulmes de David mis en françois par Clement Marot, valet de chambre du Roy. Paris: Estienne Roff et, [1541?]. 8° Bible. N.T. Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques (tr.). B 180 La premiere [-seconde] partie du Nouveau Testament de Jesu Christ, extraicte de mot à mot de la Saincte Bible. Antwerp: Vve. Martin Lempereur, 1541. 8° Bible. N.T. Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques (tr.). B 181 La premiere [-seconde] partie du Nouveau Testament de Jesu Christ, extraicte de mot à mot de la Saincte Bible. Antwerp: Vve. Martin Lempereur, 1541. 8° Bible. N.T. Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques (tr.). B 182 La Premiere [-seconde] partie du Nouveau Testament. Lyon: Th ibaud Payen, 1541. 16°

books related to the navarrian network

693

Cabosse, Jean. Habert, François (poem). C2 Traicte du Treshault et excellent mistere de l’incarnation du verbe divin, extraict du viel et nouveau testament, demonstrant le chemin de la eternelle foelicité. Paris: Denis Janot, 1541. 8° [Calvin, Jean]. C7 Les Actes de la journee imperiale, tenue en la cité de Regespourg, aultrement dicte Ratispone . . . sur les differens qui sont aujourd’hui en la Religion. [Geneva: Jean Girard], 1541. 8° Calvin, Jean. C 41 Epistre au treschrestien roi de France François premier de ce nom: en laquelle sont demonstrées les causes dont procedent les troubles qui sont aujourd’hui en l’Eglise. [Geneva: Michel Du Bois], 1541. 4° Calvin, Jean. C 58 Institution de la religion chrestienne: en laquelle est comprinse une somme de pieté, et quasi tout ce qui est necessaire à congnoistre en la doctrine de salut. [Geneva: Michel Du Bois], 1541. 4° Calvin, Jean. Du Bois, Michel (poem). C 73 Petit Traicté de la saincte cene de nostre Seigneur Jesus Christ. Auquel est demonstré la vraie institution, proft et utilité d’icelle. Geneva: Michel Du Bois, 1541. 8° Dolet, Étienne. La maniere de bien traduire d’une langue en autre. Lyon: Étienne Dolet, 1541. 4° Epistre catholique de Sainct Jacques. E 12 L’Epistre Catholique de Sainct Jacques Apostre. Avec une exposition breve, en bien facile. Geneva: Jean Girard, 1541. 8° Erasmus, Desiderius. Morin, Guy (tr.). E 46 Le Preparatif à la mort. Paris: Denis Janot, 1541. 16° Exhortation sur ces sainctes parolles de nostre seigneur Jesus. E 73 Exhortation tresutile sur les sainctes parolles de nostre Seigneur Jesus, Retournez vous et croyez à l’evangille. Aussi comment on doit faire les bonnes oeuvres, et qu’elles sont les bonnes oeuvres. [Geneva: Jean Girard], 1541. 8° Exposition des articles. E 80 Exposition Sur les Articles de la Foi et Relgion chrestienne, qu’on appelle communement le Symbole des Apostres. Contenant le sommaire de la doctrine apostolique. [Geneva: Jean Girard], 1541. 8° Lucian of Samostata. Erasmus, Desiderius (tr.). More, Thomas (tr.). Melanchthon, Philipp (tr.). Luciani Samosatensis Dialogi aliquot, D. Erasmo Rot. et Thoma Moro interpretibus, eiusdem oratio, Calumniae non esse temere credendum: et encomium Demosthenis; ex Ph. Melanchthonis versione. Lyon: Sébastien Gryphe, 1541. 8° [Marcourt, Antoine]. M 25 Le livre des marchans, fort utile à toutes gens, pour congnoistre de quelles marchandises on se doit garder destre trompe. Lequel à este nouvellement reveu et fort augmente, par son premier autheur, bien expert en tel affaire. [Geneva: Jean Michel], 30 December 1541. 8°

694

appendix b

Marot, Clément. Salel, Hugues. Les estreines de Clement marot vallet de chambre du Roy. Aultre traicté de la maladie et convalecence de monseigneur le Daulphin, composé par Hugues Salel aussi vallet de chambre du Roy. Paris: Jean Dupré, February 1541 n.s. Musaeus. Marot, Clément (tr.). Museus ancien, Poete grec, des amours de Leander & Hero, traduict en Rithme francoise, par Clement marot de Cahors en quercy, valet de chambre du Roy. Paris: Guillaume de Bossozel for Jean André and Gilles Corrozet, January 1541 n.s. 8° Rabelais, François. Almanach pour l’an MDXLI, calculé sur le meridien de la noble cité de Lyon, par maistre F.R. S.l.n., 1541. 8° Viret, Pierre. V 34 Epistre consolatoire, envoiée aux fideles qui souffrent persecution pour le Nom de Jesus et Verité evangelique. [Geneva: Jean Girard], 1541. 8° [Vitrier, Jean]. V 52 Le Sermon que nostre Seigneur Jesuchrist feit en la montaigne, avec lexposition contenant les huit beatitudes. Paris: Vve Jean de Brie, 1541. 16° 1542 Aneau, Barthélemy. Lyon marchant Satyre Francoise. Sur la comparaison de Paris, Rohan, Lyon, Orleans, et sur les choses memorables depuys Lan mil cinq cens vingtquatre. Soubz Allegories, et Enigmes Par personnages mysticques iouée au College de la Trinité à Lyon. 1541. Lyon: For Pierre de Tours, 1542. 8° Aretino, Pietro. Vauzelles, Jean de (tr.). A 11 La Genese de M. Pierre Aretin, avec la vision de Noë, en laquelle il veit les mysteres du Vieil et Nouveau testament. Lyon: Sebastian Gryphe, 1542. 8° Baduel, Claude. Oratio funebris in funere Floretae Sarrasiae habita. Lyon: Étienne Dolet, 1542. 4° Bible. O.T. Psalms. Marot, Clément (tr.). Scève, Maurice (tr.). B 92 [Psaumes de Clement Marot. Sermon du bon et mauvais pasteur.] Lyon: Étienne Dolet, 1542. 32° Bible. O.T. Psalms. Olivétan, Pierre Robert (tr.). Bucer, Martin (comm.). Athanasius, St. Dolet, Étienne (tr.). B 93 [Psalmes du royal Prophete David. Fidelement traduicts de Latin en François. Auxquelz est adjouxté son argument. Lyon: Étienne Dolet, 1542. 16° Bible. N.T. Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques (tr.). B 186 La Premiere [-seconde] partie du Nouveau Testament.] Lyon: Thibaud Payen, 1542. 16° Bref discours. [Étienne Dolet?]. & Petit traicté. [Roussel, Gérard?]. B 261 Brief Discours de la Republique françoise desirant la lecture des livres de la saincte Escripture lui estre loisible en sa langue vulgaire. Le dict discours est en rime. Avec un petit traicté en prose monstrant comme on se doibt apprester a la lecture. Lyon: Étienne Dolet, 1542. 16°

books related to the navarrian network

695

Brodeau, Victor. Gaigny, Jean de (tr.). B 268 Les Louanges Du sainct nom de Jesus, avec la correspondence des figures à la verité . . . Six sermons des six parolles de nostre Seigneur en croix. Paris: Estienne Roffet, 1542. 8° [Brunfels, Otto]. B 275 Les Prieres et oraisons de la Bible, faictes par les Sainctz peres, et par les hommes, et femmes illustres: tant de l’Ancien que du nouveau Testament. Lyon: Étienne Dolet, 1542. 16° [Calvin, Jean]. C8 Les Actes de la journee imperiale, tenue en la cité de Reguespourg, aultrement dicte Ratispone . . . sur les differens qui sont aujourd’hui en la Religion. [Geneva: Jean Girard], 1542. 8° [Calvin, Jean. Marot, Clément]. C 49 La Forme des prieres et chantz ecclesiastiques, avec la maniere d’administrer les Sacremens, et consacrer le Mariage: selon la coustume de l’Eglise ancienne. [Geneva: Jean Girard], 1542. 8° [Calvin, Jean. Marot, Clément]. C 65 La Manyere de faire prieres aux eglises Françoises tant devant la predication comme apres, ensemble pseaulmes et cantiques francois qu’on chante aux dictes eglises. [Strasbourg: Johann Knobloch, Jr.], 15 February 1542. 8° Calvin, Jean. Du Bois, Michel (poem). C 74 Petit Traicté de la saincte cene de nostre Seigneur Jesus Christ. Auquel est demonstré la vraie institution, profit et utilité d’icelle. [Geneva: Jean Girard], 1542. 8° Campen, Jan van. C 87 Paraphrase, c’est à dire claire et briefve interpretation sur les psalmes . . . et sur l’Ecclesiaste. Geneva: Jean Girard, [1542?]. Campen, Jan van. C 86 Paraphrase. C’est à dire, claire, et briefve interpretation sur les Psalmes de David. Aultre interpretation Paraphrastique sur l’Ecclesiaste de Salomon. Lyon: Étienne Dolet, 1542. 16° Campen, Jan van. C 85 Paraphrase. C’est adire, claire, et briefve interpretation sur les Psalmes de David. Item, Aultre interpretation Paraphrastique sur l’Ecclesiaste de Salomon. Lyon: Étienne Dolet, 1542. 16° Erasmus, Desiderius. Berquin, Louis de (tr?). E 32 Le Chevalier Chresien, Composé en Latin par Erasme, et puis traduict en langue Francois. Lyon: Jean de Tournes, 1542. 16° Erasmus, Desiderius. Berquin, Louis de (tr?). E 30 Le Chevalier Chresien. Premierement composé en Latin par Erasme: et depuis traduict en Francois. Lyon: Étienne Dolet, 1542. 16° Erasmus, Desiderius. Berquin, Louis de (tr?). E 31 Le Chevalier Chresien. Premierement composé en Latin par Erasme: et depuis traduict en Francois. Lyon: Étienne Dolet, 1542. 16° Erasmus, Desiderius. Chansonnette, Claude (tr.). E 38 Le Vray moyen de bien et catholiquement se confesser. Lyon: Étienne Dolet, 1542. 16°

696

appendix b

Erasmus, Desiderius. E 47 Preparation à la mort. Lyon: Étienne Dolet, 1542. Erasmus, Desiderius. Vienne, Philibert de (tr.). E 54 Le sermon de Jesus enfant. Paris: Galliot Du Pré, 1542. Exhortation à la lecture des Sainctes Lettres. [Erasmus, Desiderius. Chrysostom, St. John. Dolet, Étienne. Roussel, Gérard?]. E 69 Exhortation à la lecture des sainctes lettres. Avec suffisante probation des Docteurs de l’Eglise, qu’il est licite, et necessaire, icelles estre translatées en langue vulgaire: & mesmement en la Francoyse. Lyon: Étienne Dolet, 1542. 8° Exposition de l’oraison dominicale. E 79 Traicte contentant plusieurs expositions utiles et salutaires sur l’oraison dominicale aultrement dicte la Patinostre. [Lyon: Olivier Arnoullet, 1542?]. 8° Fontaine de vie. F 45 La Fontaine de vie. Lyon: Étienne Dolet, 1542. Fontaine de vie. Instruction pour les enfans. F 46 La Fontaine de Vie de laquelle resourdent tresdoulces consolations, singulierement necessaire aux cueurs affligez. Plus y est adjouste linstruction pour les enfans. Paris: Estienne Caveiller for Arnoul Langelier, 1542. 16° Héroët, Antoine. La parfaicte amye. Nouvellement composée par Antoine Heroet, dict La Maisonneufue. Auec plusieurs autres compositions dudict autheur. Lyon: Pierre de Tours, 1542. 8° Heures de la compagnie des penitents. H 11 Les Heures de la compagnie des penitents. Lyon: Étienne Dolet, 1542. 16° Images de la mort. Holbein, Hans (ill.). Vauzelles, Jean de. Rhegius, Urbanus. Cyprian, St. Chrysostom, St. John. I7 Les Simulachres et historiees faces de la mort, contenant La medecine de l’ame, utile et necessarie non seulement aux Malades, mais à tous qui sont en bonne disposition corporelle. D’avantage, La Forme et maniere de consoler les malades. Lyon: Jean and François Frellon, 1542. 8° [Thomas à Kempis]. I 31 L’Internelle consolation. Œuvre divisée en trois parties et necessaire à tout esprit Chrestien. Lyon: Étienne Dolet, 1542. 16° La Borderie, Bertrand de. L’Amie de court inventée par le seigneur de Borderie. Paris: Denis Janot and Vincent Sertenas, 1542. 16° La Borderie, Bertrand de. L’Amie de court nouvellement inventée par le seigneur de Borderie. Lyon: s.n., 1542. 8° [Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques. Et al.]. L 22 Les Epistres, et Evangiles des cinquante, et deux Dimenches de l’An, Avecques briefves, et tresutiles expositions d’ycelles. Lyon: Étienne Dolet, 3 May 1542. 16° Livre de la compagnie des Penitens. L 66 Livre de la compagnie des Penitens contenant l’ordre de recepvoir un Novice. Lyon: Étienne Dolet, 1542.

books related to the navarrian network

697

[Luther, Martin. Farel, Guillaume]. Chrysostom, St. John. [Et al.]. L 106 Le livre de vraie et parfaicte oraison. Poitiers: Enguilbert and Jean de Marnef, 1542. 16° [Marcourt, Antoine]. M 30 Petit traicte tres utile, et salutaire de la saincte eucharistie de nostre Seigneur Jesuchrist. [Geneva: Jean Michel], 26 July 1542. 8° Marot, Clémemt. [1er et 2me Coq-à-l’asne.] S.l.n., [c. 1542]. 12° Marot, Clément. L’Enfer de Clement Marot de Cahors en Quercy, Valet de chambre du Roy. Item aulcunes ballades & Rondeaulx appartenants à l’argument. Et en oultre plusieurs aultres compositions dudict marot, par cy devant non imprimees. Lyon: Étienne Dolet, 1542. 8° [Rabelais, François]. R 19 La Plaisante, et joieuse histoire du grand Geant Gargantua. Prochainement reveue, et de beaucoup augmentée par l’Autheur mesme. Lyon: Étienne Dolet, 1542. 16° [Rabelais, François]. R 13 Pantagruel, Roi des Dipsodes, restitué à son naturel: avec ses faictz, et prouesses espouventables. Lyon: Étienne Dolet, 1542. 16° Rabelais, François. Pantagrueline prognostication, certaine, veritable, et infallible. Pour l’an perpetuel. Lyon: François Juste, 1542. 16° [Sleidan, Johannes]. S 18 Escript adresse aux Electeurs Princes, et aultres Estatz de Lempire. Contenant comme et par quelz moyens sest esleve la Papalte, la decadence dicelle, ses merveilleuses praticques, et en somme ce qu’on en peult experer de ce temps. Strasbourg: [Johann Knobloch, Jr.], 1542. 8° Sommaires de la Bible. S 21 Le Sommaire des livres du Vieil, et Nouveau Testament. Les Dix parolles, ou Commandements de Dieu. Lyon: Étienne Dolet, 1542. 16° 1543 Armure de patience. A 18 L’armure de patience en adversité. Lyon: Jean de Tournes, 1543. 16° Bible. N.T. Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques (tr.). B 189 Le Nouveau Testament de nostre Seigneur Jesu Christ, seul sauveur du monde . . . avec les figures des Evangiles et dés Actes et de L’apocalypse. Item . . . les Epistres du vieil Testament. Antwerp: Jean Richard, 1543. 12° Bible. N.T. Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques (tr.). B 191 La premiere [-seconde] Partie du Nouveau Testament. Lyon: Jacques Crozet, 1543. 16° Bible. N.T. Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques (tr.). B 192 La Premiere [-seconde] Partie du Nouveau Testament. [Lyon: Thibaud Payen], 1543. 16°

698

appendix b

Bible. N.T. Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques (tr.). B 188 Le Nouveau Testament de nostre Seigneur Jesu Christ, seul sauveur du monde . . . avec lés Figures dés Evangiles, et de L’apocalypse. Item . . . lés Epistres du vieil testament. Antwerp: Henry Pierre de Middelburch, 1543. 16° Bible. N.T. Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques (tr.). B 187 Le Nouveau Testament de nostre Seigneur Jesu Christ, seul sauveur du monde . . . avec lés Figures dés Evangiles, et dés Actes et de L’apocalypse. Item . . . lés Epistres du vieil testament. Antwerp: Guillaume Du Mont, 31 March 1543. 16° Bible. O.T. Psalms. Marot, Clément (tr.). Calvin, Jean, preface. B 96 Cinquante Pseaumes. [Geneva: Jean Girard], 1543. Bible. O.T. Psalms. Olivétan, Pierre Robert (tr.). Bucer, Martin (comm.). Athanasius, St. Dolet, Étienne (tr.). B 94 Les Psalmes de David, Fidelement traduicts de Latin en François. Avec argument et sommaire à chascun Psalme. Lyon: Jean de Tournes, 1543. 16° Brodeau, Victor. B 269 Les Louanges du sainct nom de Jesus . . . plus Une epistre d’ung pecheur à JesuChrist. Lyon: Étienne Dolet, [1543?]. 16° Brodeau, Victor. B 270 Les Louanges du sainct nom de Jesus. Avec la correspondence de Figures, à la verite . . . Plus une Epistre d’ung pecheur à Jesus Christ. Lyon: Olivier Arnoullet, 20 October 1543. 8° [Brunfels, Otto]. B 276 Les Prieres et oraisons de la Bible, Faictes par les Sainctz Peres, tant du Vieil, que du Nouveau Testament. Lyon: Jean de Tournes, 1543. 16° Calvin, Jean. Viret, Pierre. C 39 Deux Epistres, l’une demonstre comment nostre Seigneur Jesus Christ est la fin de la Loi. . . . L’autre pour consoler les fideles qui souffrent pour le Nom de Jesus. [Geneva: Jean Girard], 1543. 8° [Calvin, Jean. Marot, Clément]. C 50 La Forme des prieres et chantz ecclesiastiques, avec la maniere d’administrer les sacremens, et celebrer le mariage et la visitation des malades. [Geneva]: s.n., 1543. Calvin, Jean. C 77 Petit traicté, monstrant que c’est que doit faire un homme fidele congnoissant la verité de l’evangile: quand il est entre les papistes, Avec une Epistre du mesme argument. [Geneva: Jean Girard], 1543. 8° Campen, Jan van. Athanasius, St. C 88 Paraphrase sur les Psalmes par le tres savant M. Jean Campensis. Saint Athanase sur le livre des Pseaulmes. L’Interpretation sur l’Ecclesiaste. Oraisons pour le temps daffliction. Antwerp: Jean Steelius, 1543. 16° Chrysostom, St. John. Pesseliere, Pierre (tr.). C 108 Traicté . . . Que nul n’est offensé sinon par soi-mesme. Lyon: Jean de Tournes, 1543. 16° Chrysostom, St. John. Pesseliere, Pierre (tr.). C 109 Traicté . . . Que nul n’est offensé sinon par soi-mesme. Paris: Adam Saulnier, 1543. 8°

books related to the navarrian network

699

Dolet, Étienne. D 35 Les faictz et gestes du Roi François premier de ce nom, tant contre l’empereur que ses subjectz, et autres nations estranges . . . depuis 1513 jusques à present. Paris: Alain Lotrian, 1543. 8° Dolet, Étienne. D 34 Les Gestes de François de Valois Roi de France . . . depuis l’An Mil cinq cens treize, jusques en l’An Mil cinq cents quarante, et trois. Lyon: Étienne Dolet, 1543. 8° Dolet, Étienne. D 38 Sommaire et recueil des faictz et gestes, du Roi François premier de ce nom, tant contre l’empereur que ses subjectz, et autres nations estranges . . . depuis 1513 jusques à present. Paris: Alain Lotrian, 1543. 8° Dolet, Étienne. D 39 Sommaire et recueil des faictz et gestes, du Roi François premier de ce nom, tant contre l’empereur que ses subjectz, et autres nations estranges . . . depuis 1513 jusques à present. Rouen: Jean Petit and Nicolas de Burges, 1543. 8° [Du Pinet, Antoine. Lambert, François. Meyer, Sebastien.] D 101 Exposition sur l’Apocalypse de Sainct Jehan l’Apostre, extraicte de plusieurs docteurs tant anciens que modernes: reveuë, et augmentée de nouveau. Geneva: Jean Girard, 1543. 8° Erasmus, Desiderius. Berquin, Louis de (tr?). E 33 Enchiridion, ou manuel du chevalier chrestien, avec des commandemens tressalutaires . . . avec ung prologue merveilleusement utile et de nouveau adjousté. Antwerp: Antoine Des Gois, 1543. 16° Erasmus, Desiderius. E 48 La Preparation à la mort. Lyon: Jean de Tournes, 1543. 16° Erasmus, Desiderius. E 49 Preparation à la mort. . . . Avecques aulcunes Prieres et Pseaulmes de la Saincte escripture moult prouffictables à tous Christiens. [Antwerp?]: s.n., 1543. 16° Erasmus, Desiderius. Vienne, Philibert de (tr.). E 56 Le sermon de Jesus enfant. Lyon: Thibaud Payen, 1543. Erasmus, Desiderius. Vienne, Philibert de (auth. and tr.). E 55 Le sermon de Jesus enfant. Avec le songe du combat entre le corps et l’esprit. Lyon: Jean de Tournes, 1543. 16° Exposition des articles. E 81 Exposition des articles de la Foi et Relgion Chrestienne, qu’on appelle communement le Symbole des Apostres: contenant le sommaire de la doctrine Apostolique. [Geneva: Jean Girard], 1543. 8° Farel, Guillaume. Caroli, Pierre. Calvin, Jean. F9 Une Epistre de Maistre Pierre Caroly docteur de la Sorbone de Paris . . . envoiée à Maistre Guillaume Farel . . . avec la response. Geneva: Jean Girard, 14–21 May 1543. 8° Farel, Guillaume. F 10 La Seconde Epistre envoiée au Docteur Pierre Caroly. Geneva: Jean Girard, 25 June 1543. 8°

700

appendix b

Fontaine, Charles. La contr’amye de court. Rouen: Nicolas de Burges, 1543. 16° Fontaine, Charles. La contr’amye de court. [Paris]: Adam Saulnier, 1543. 8° Fontaine de vie. F 47 La Fontaine de vie. Lyon: Jean de Tournes, 1543. 16° Francis I E4 Edict du Roi Sur les articles faictz par la faculte de Theologie de luniversite de Paris concernans nostre foi. Lyon: s.n., [1543?]. 8° [Luther, Martin]. L 83 Les quatorze miroirs pour consoler la creature en Dieu. [Geneva]: s.n., [1543?]. [Luther, Martin. Farel, Guillaume]. Chrysostom, St. John. [Et al.]. L 107 Le livre de vraie et parfaicte oraison. Lyon: Jean de Tournes, 1543. 16° [Luther, Martin. Farel, Guillaume]. Chrysostom, St. John. [Et al.]. L 108 Le livre de vraie et parfaicte oraison. Paris: Nicolas Buffet for Jacques Regnault and Antoine Foucault, 1543. 8° [Luther, Martin. Farel, Guillaume]. Chrysostom, St. John. [Et al.]. L 109 Le livre de vraie et parfaicte oraison. Lyon: Olivier Arnoullet, 1543. 8° Marguerite de Navarre. Epistre envoyee au roi par sa soeur unique, la roine de Navarre. Rouen: Jean Lhomme, 1543. 4° [Marguerite de Navarre]. Le Fable du faulx cuider, contentant l’histoire des nymphes de Dyane transmuées en saulles, faicte par une notable dame de la court, envoiée à Madame Marguerite, fille unicque du roi de France. [Paris]: Adam Saulnier, [1543]. 8° Marot, Clément. Les Oeuvres de Clement Marot de Cahors, Valet de Chambre du Roi. Augmentées d’ung grand nombre de ses compositions nouvelles, par cy devant non imprimées. Le tout soigneusement par lui mesmes reveu, et mieulx ordonné, comme lon voira cy apres. Lyon: Étienne Dolet, 1543. 8° [Sleidan, Johannes]. S 19 D’un nouveau chef qui au temps des empereurs s’esleva à Rome. Livre contenant comment et par quelz moyens s ést eslevé la Papaute: La decadence d’icelle, Ses merveilleuses pratiques, et en somme ce qu’on en peut esperer de ce temps. [Geneva: Jean Girard], 1543. 8° Sommaires de la Bible. S 22 La doctrine des Chrestiens, extraicte du Vieil et Nouveau tesament. Les dix parolles ou commandemens de Dieu. L’Oraison Dominicalle . . . Les commandemens de nostre mere Saincte Esglise. Les sept Sacremens. Paris: Denis Janot, 1543. 16° Sommaires de la Bible. [Estienne, Robert.] S 23 Le Sommaire des livres du Vieil et Nouveau testament. Les dix parolles, ou commandemens de Dieu. [Paris: Robert Estienne, 1543?]. 16° Sainte-Marthe, Charles de. In Psalmum septimum et psalmum XXXIII, paraphrasis per Carolum Samarthenum Fontebraldensem. Lyon: “Le Prince” [Pierre de Sainte-Lucie], 16 May 1543. 8°

books related to the navarrian network

701

Tirocinium Christianae Militiae. Tirocinium Christianae Militiae omnibus ad viam salutis aeternae par quà necessarium. quae hoc tyrocinio contenta sunt, versa pagella indicabit. Militia est vita hominis super terram Iob 7. Lyon: “Le Prince” [Pierre de Sainte-Lucie], 1543. 16° [Tomeo, Nicolò Leonico]. La Coudraie, François de (tr.). Papillon, Almanque. Marot, Clément. Sainte-Marthe, Charles de. Les questions problematiqus [sic] du pourquoy d’Amours, Nouuellement traduict, d’Italien en langue Francoyse par Nicolas Leonique, poëte Francoys. Auec vng petit liure, contenant le Nouuel Amour inuenté par le seigneur Papillon, et vne Epistre abhorant folle Amour, par Clement Marot, varlet de chambre du Roy, Aussi plusieurs Dixains, à ce propos de saincte Marthe. Paris: Alain Lotrian, 1543. 8° Viret, Pierre. V 35 Epistre envoyee aux fideles conversans entre les Chrestiens Papistiques, pour leur remonstrer comment ilz se doivent garder d’estres souillez et polluz par leur superstitions et idolatries et de deshonnorer Jesus Christ par icelles. [Geneva: Jean Girard], 1543. 8° 1544 Beaulieu, Eustorg de. Les divers rapportz, contenantz plusieurs rondeaulx, huictains, dixains, ballades, chansons, épistres, blasons, épitaphes, et aultres joyeusetez, le tout composé par M. E. de Beaulieu. Paris: Alain Lotrian, 1544. 8° Bible. O.T. Psalms. Marot, Clément (tr.). B 98 Les psalmes du royal prophete David, traduictz par Clement Marot. Avec autres petits Ouvrages par lui mesme. Lyon: Étienne Dolet, 1544. 16° Bible. O.T. Solomon. Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques (tr.). B 150 Salomon. Les Proverbes. Ecclesiastes. Les Cantiques. Sapience. Ecclesiastique. Antwerp: Jean Loe, 1544. 16° Bible. N.T. Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques (tr.). B 193 Le nouveau Testament auquel est demonstre Jesu Crist nostre Sauver, et en plusieurs lieu predict par les Prophetes, avec la declaration des œuvres et myracles qu’il a fait. Antwerp: Jacques de Liesvelt, 1544. 16° [Brunfels, Otto]. B 277 Les Prieres et Oraisons de la Bible. Lyon: Jean de Tournes, 1544. [Bucer, Martin]. B 279 Exposition sur l’evangile selon sainct Matthieu. Recueillie et prinse des commentaires de M.M. Bucer. Depuis reveue, augmentée et enrichie de plusieures, exhortations et declarations. Geneva: Jean Girard, 1544. 8° [Calvin, Jean]. C 11 Advertissement sur la censure qu’ont faicte les Bestes de Sorbonne, touchant les livres qu’ilz appellent heretiques. [Geneva: Jean Girard], 1544. 8° [Calvin, Jean]. C 18 Les Articles de la sacree Faculté de Theologie de Paris, concernans nostre Foi, et religion Chrestienne, et forme de prescher. Avec le Remede contre la Poison. [Basel]: s.n., 1544. 8°

702

appendix b

[Calvin, Jean]. C 19 Les Articles de la sacree faculte de theologie de Paris concerans nostre foi et religion Chrestienne, et forme de prescher. Avec le remede contre la poison. [Geneva: Jean Girard], 1544. 8° Calvin, Jean. Articuli a facultate s. theologiae Parisiensi determinati super materiis fidei nostrae hodie controversis. Cum Antidoto. S.l.n., 1544. Calvin, Jean. C 61 Brieve Instruction, pour armer tous bons fideles contre les erreurs de la secte commune des Anabaptistes. Geneva: Jean Girard, 1544. 8° Calvin, Jean. C 43 Excuse . . . à Messieurs les Nicodemites, sur la complaincte qu’ilz font de sa trop sa trop grand’rigueur. [Geneva: Jean Girard], 1544. 8° Calvin, Jean. Du Bois, Michel (poem). C 74 Petit Traicté de la saincte cene de nostre Seigneur Jesus Christ. Auquel est demonstré la vraie institution, profit et utilité d’icelle. [Geneva: Jean Girard], 1544. 8° Calvin, Jean. C 78 Petit traicté, monstrant que c’est que doit faire un homme fidele congnoissant la verité de l’Evangile: quand il est entre les papistes, Avec une Epistre du mesme argument. [Geneva: Jean Girard], 1544. 8° Caracciolo, Antonio. C 90 Le mirouer de vraie religion. Paris: Simon de Colines and Regnault Chaudiere, 1544. 8° Caracciolo, Antonio. C 91 Le mirouer de vraie religion. Paris: Simon de Colines and Regnault Chaudiere, 1544. 16° Chappuys, François. Marot, Clément (preface). Sommaire de certains et vrays remedes contre la Peste. Lyon: Jean and François Frellon, 1544. 16° Des Périers, Bonaventure. Du Moulin, Antoine (ed.). Recueil des Oeuvres de feu Bonaventure des Periers. Lyon: Jean de Tournes, 1544. 8° Dolet, Étienne. D 36 Les faictz et gestes du Roi François: premier de ce nom tant contre Lempereur que ses subjectz et autres nations estranges . . . depuis 1513 jusques à present. [Paris?: Alain Lotrian?, 1544?]. 8° Dolet, Étienne. Le Second Enfer d’Estienne Dolet natif d’Orleans. Qui sont certains compositions faicte par lui mesmes, sur la justification de son second emprisonnement. Avec Privilege pour dix ans. Lyon: Étienne Dolet, 1544. 8° Dolet, Étienne. Le Second Enfer d’Estienne Dolet natif d’Orleans. Qui sont certaines compositions faictes par lui mesmes, sur la justification de son second emprisonnement. Troyes: Nicole Paris, 1544. 8°

books related to the navarrian network

703

Du Bellay, Jean. Aduersus Iacobi Omphalii maledicta: pro Rege Francorum Christianissimo defensio. [Paris: Robert Estienne, 1544]. 4° Du Bellay, Jean. Olivier, François. Mailly, Africain de. Oraison escripte suyuant l’intention du roy treschrestien, aux Serenissimes . . . seigneurs, et à tous les estas du Sainct Empire assemblez en la ville de Spire. Paris: Robert Estienne, 1544. 4° Du Bellay, Jean. Olivier, François. Mailly, Africain de. Oraison escripte suyuant l’intention du roy treschrestien, aux Serenissimes, Reverendissimes, Tresillustres, Tresexcellens, Magnifiques, Treshauls Seigneurs, & a tous les estas du sainct empire assemblez en la ville de Spire. Paris: Robert Estienne, 1544. 8° [Du Bellay, Jean]. Response à une épistre envoyée de Spire par ung secrétaire allemand à ung serviteur du Roy tres chrestien. Aultre épistre des choses faictes puis quatre ans en l’Europe. Paris: Robert Estienne, 1544. 4° Erasmus, Desiderius. Saliat, Pierre (tr.). E 19 La Civilité puerile. Lyon: Jean de Tournes, 1544. 16° Erasmus, Desiderius. Berquin, Louis de (tr?). E 34 Le Chevalier Chrestien. Composé en Latin par Erasme, et puis traduit en langue Françoise. Lyon: Jean de Tournes, 1544. 16° Erasmus, Desiderius. E 50 De la preparation à la mort, traduict en françois d’Erasme avec une instruction chrestienne par Guy Morin, sieur de Loudon. Lyon: François Juste, 1544. 16° Erasmus, Desiderius. [Morin, Guy (tr?)]. E 51 Preparation à la mort. Paris: s.n., 1544. Exhortation à la lecture des Sainctes Lettres. [Erasmus, Desiderius. Chrysostom, St. John. Dolet, Étienne. Roussel, Gérard?]. E 70 Exhortation à la lecture des Sainctes Lettres. Avec suffisante probation de Docteurs de l’Eglise, qu’il est licite, et necessaire, icelles estre translatées en Langue vulgaire: et mesmesent en la Françoise. Lyon: Balthazar Arnoullet, 1544. 16° Farel, Guillaume. F 11 Epistre exhortatoire, à tous ceux qui ont congnoissance de l’Evanglie, les admonestant de cheminer purement et vivre selon icelui, glorifiant Dieu et edifiant le prochain par parolles, et par oeuvres. [Geneva: Jean Girard], 1544. 8° Gergory of Naziansus, St. Chrysostom, St. John. Basil, St. Guillaume Chrestien (tr.). Q1 Quatre homelies de trois antiques et excellens Theologiens . . . S. Gregoire Nazianzene, S. Jean Chrysostome, S. Basile. Lyon: Jean de Tournes, 1544. 16° Guingant, Julien. Le Relief de l’ame pecheresse. S.l.n., [1544?]. [Heyden, Gaspar van der]. H 14 D’un seul mediateur, advocat, et intercesseur entre Dieu et les hommes, notre Seigneur Jesus Christ. Ou est aussi demonstré comment la Vierge Marie doit estre honnorée. [Geneva: Jean Girard], 1544. 8°

704

appendix b

[Landry, François]. L 13 La declaration de la Foi chrestienne, faicte par ung bachelier en theologie . . . touchant aulcuns articles à lui imposez Lesquelles de point en point à confessees et confirmees en la presence de la faculte de theologie. [Rouen]: Jean Lhomme, [1544?]. 8° [Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques. Et al.]. L 24 Epistres et evangiles des cinquante et deux dimenches de l’An. Avecques briefves, et tresutiles expositions d’icelles. Lyon: Jean de Tournes, 1544. 16° [Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques. Et al.]. L 23 Epistres et Evangiles des cinquante et deux Dimenches de l’An. Avecques briefves, et tresutiles expositions d’ycelles. Lyon: Balthazar Arnoullet, 1544. 16° [Luther, Martin. Farel, Guillaume]. Chrysostom, St. John. [Et al.]. L 110 Le livre de vraie et parfaicte Oraison avec le Sermon que nostre Seigneur feist en la montagne, et l’exposition contenant les huict beatitudes, deux Homelies de S. Jean Chrisostome pour apprendre la maniere de prier Dieu. Paris: Charles Langelier, 1544. Marot, Clément. Eglogue sur la naissance du fils du dauphin. Paris: Guillaume de Bossozel, 1544. 8° Marot, Clément. Epistre envoyée par clement marot à Monsieur Danguyen Lieutenant pour le Roy de là les Montz. Paris: Nicolas l’Héritier, 1544. 16° [Rabelais, François?]. La grande et vraye Pronostication nouvelle pour l’an Mil.CCCCC.xliiii. Composée à l’utilité de tous vrays Chrestiens studieux d’honnestes disciplines par maistre Seraphino Calbasy, Docteur en la tres noble sience d’astrologie et medecine de toute. Paris: Jean Réal, 1544. 4° Sagon, François. Bourgeoys, Jacques (tr.). Buchanan, George. Apologye, en defense pour le Roy, fondée sur texte d’euangile, contre ses ennemys et calumniateurs, par Françoys de Sagon. Auec priuilege du roy. 1544. Paris: Denis Janot, 1544. 4° Somme de l’écriture. [Luther, Martin]. S 28 La Somme de l’escripture saincte, enseignant la vraie foi, par laquelle sommes justifiez. Et de la vertu du baptesme, selon la doctrine de l’Evangile et des Apostres. Avec une information comme tous estatz doibvent vivre selon l’Evangile. [Geneva: Jean Michel], 1544. 8° Vallambert, Simon (auth. and tr.). Phocylides. Linus. Marguerite de Navarre. [Naumachios] . . . Simonis Vallamberti Hedui Aualonensis, Institutio puellæ, ex Naumachio. Natura mulierum, ex Phocylide. Exhortatio ad prudentiam et ad spem è Lini fragmentis . . . Elegia de amore divino et humano ex Gallico Reginæ Navarrorum. Paris: Chrestien Wechel, 1544. 4° Vérité cachée. V9 La Verite cachee, devant cent ans faicte et composee à six personnages: nouvellement corrigee et augmentee avec les autoritez de la saincte Escripture. [Geneva: Jean Michel], 1544. 8°

books related to the navarrian network

705

1545 [Benedetto da Mantova]. Chrysostom, St. John. [Flaminio, Marcantonio. Calvin, Jean]. Le Maistre, Claude (tr.). B 18 Traité du benefice de Jesus Christ crucifié envers les chrestiens, traduit de l’italien. Ensemble la 16. homelie de S. Jean Chrysostome. Lyon: Jean de Tournes, 1545. 16° Bible. O.T. Psalms. Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques (tr. and comm.). Liber Psalmorum cum tenoribus ad rectè profêrendum aptîssimis. Lyon: Matthieu Bonhomme, 1545. 8° Bible. O.T. Psalms. Marot, Clément (tr.). Le Maistre, Claude (tr.). Pasquier, Estienne (tr.). Des Périers, Bonaventure (tr.). B 102 Cinquante deux Pseaumes de David, Traduictz en rithme François selon la verité Hebraique, par Clement Marot. Paris: Jacques Bogard and Jean Ruelle, 1545. 16° Bourbon, Nicolas. Tabella elementaria pueris. Lyon: s.n., 1545. Cabosse, Jean. C3 Traité et dialogue d’entre le precepteur et le disciple du trehault et tresexcellent mystere de l’Incarantion du Verbe divin. Paris: Charles Langelier, 1545? 16° Calvin, Jean. C 62 Brieve Instruction, pour armer tous bons fideles contre les erreurs de la secte commune des Anabaptistes. Geneva: Jean Girard, 1545. 8° Calvin, Jean. C 68 Contre la secte phantastique et furieuse des Libertins. Qui se nomment spirituelz. Geneva: Jean Girard, 1545. 8° Calvin, Jean. Viret, Pierre. C 40 Deux Epistres. L’une demonstre comment nostre Seigneur Jesus Christ est la fin de la Loi. . . . L’autre pour consoler les fideles qui souffrent pour le Nom de Jesus. [Geneva: Jean Girard], 1545. 8° Calvin, Jean. Sturm, Johann (preface). C 59 Institution de la religion chrestienne: composee en latin . . . et translatée en Francois . . .: en laquelle est comprise une somme de toute la Chrestienté. Geneva: Jean Girard, 10 February 1545. 4° Calvin, Jean. Du Bois, Michel (poem). C 75 Petit Traicté de la saincte cene de nostre Seigneur Jesus Christ. Auquel est demonstré la vraie institution, profit et utilité d’icelle. [Geneva: Jean Girard], 1545. 8° Calvin, Jean. Melanchthon, Philipp. Bucer, Martin. Martyr, Peter. C 79 Petit traicté monstrant que doit faire un homme fidele . . . Ensemble l’Excuse faicte sur cela aux Nicodemites. [Geneva: Jean Girard and René de Bienassis], 1545. 8° Campen, Jan van. C 89 Paraphrase ou briefve interpretation sur les Psalmes de David. Plus, Autre interpretation Paraphrastique sur l’Ecclesiaste de Salomon. Lyon: Balthazar Arnoullet, 1545. 16°

706

appendix b

Caroli, Pierre. Refutatio blasphemiae Farellistarum in Sacroscanctam Trinitatem. Per Petrum Carolum Rosetanum. Parisi. Doct. Theol. Metz: Jean Palier for Vivant Gaultherot in Paris, 1545. 8° Chansons. [Malingre, Matthieu (ed?). Marot, Clément]. C 95 Chanson spirituelle sur la saincte Cene de nostre Seigneur . . . avec le Deviz consolatif d’un Chrestien affligé, et un D’eglogue rustic d’un Pastoureau Chrestien et la Confession d’un chascun fidelle. [Lyon?]: s.n., 1545. 8° Chansons. Malingre, Matthieu (ed.). Cordier, Mathurin. C 102 Chansons spirituelles, pleines de louenges à Dieu: de saincte doctrine et exhoratations, pour edifier le prochain, tant vieilles que nouvelles. [Geneva: Jean Girard], 1545. 8° [Du Pinet, Antoine. Lambert, François. Meyer, Sebastien.] D 102 Exposition sur l’apocalypse de Sainct Jehan l’apostre, extraicte de plusieurs Docteurs tant anciens que modernes: reveue, et augmentée de nouveau. [Geneva: Jean Girard], 1545. 8° Fontaine, Charles. La Fontaine d’amour, contenant elegies, epistres et epigrammes. Lyon: s.n., 1545. 8° Images de la mort. Holbein, Hans (ill.). Vauzelles, Jean de. Rhegius, Urbanus. Cyprian, St. Chrysostom, St. John. Imagines mortis. His accesserunt: Epigrammata e gallico idiomate a Georigio Aemylio in latinum translata . . . Medicina animae . . . Ratio consolandi ob morbi gravitatem periculose decumbentes. Lyon: Sub scuto coloniensi, 1545. 8° [Luther, Martin]. L 93 Exposition sur le deux Epistres de S. Pierre, et sur celle de S. Jude: en laquelle tout ce qui touche la doctrine Chrestienne est parfaictement comprins. Geneva: Jean Girard, 1545. 8° [Luther, Martin. Farel, Guillaume]. Chrysostom, St. John. [Et al.]. L 111 Le livre de vraie et parfaicte oraison. Antwerp: Jean de Grave and Guillaume Vissenaken, 1545. 16° [Luther, Martin. Farel, Guillaume]. Chrysostom, St. John. [Et al.]. L 112 Le livre de vraie et parfaicte oraison. Avec le Sermon que nostre Seigneur feist en la montagne, et l’exposition contenant les huit beatitudes, prinses du .v. vi. et vii. Chapitres de sainct Matthieu. Paris: Charles Langelier, 1545. 16° [Marguerite de Navarre]. Le Fable du faulx cuider, contentant l’histoire des nymphes de Dyane transmuées en saulles, faicte par une notable dame de la court, envoiée à Madame Marguerite, fille unicque du roi de France. Toulouse: G. Boudeville, [1545]. 8° Marot, Clément. Le Baladin. Paris: s.n., 10 April 1545. 8° [Papillon, Almanque? Marot, Clément?]. M 44 Bergerie du bon pasteur et du mauvais. [Lyon: Jean and François Frellon, 1545?]. 16° Salmon, Jean (Macrin). De rebus in Gallia Belgica nuper gestis et pace restituta carmen. Paris: s.n., 1545. 8°

books related to the navarrian network

707

1546 Aristotle. Roussel, Gérard (tr.). Clichtove, Josse (comm.). Magnorum Moralium Aristotelis libri duo, Gerardo Ruffo Vaccariensi interprete. Paris: J. Barbaei, 1546. 4° Arrêts et ordonnaces. A 20 Arrest notable donné le 4e jour d’Octobre, l’an 1546, par la Chambre ordonnée par el Roy . . . contre grand nombre d’Heretiques et blasphemateurs, du grand marché de Meaulx. Paris: Jean André, [1546?]. 8° Baduel, Claude. Rozel, Charles (tr.). Oraison funèbre de Florète de Sarrat, épouse de Jean de Montcalm, seigneur de Saint-Véran. Lyon: s.n., 1546. 8° Beaulieu, Eustorg de. B3 Chrestienne resjouissance composée par E. de B., jadis prestre, musicien et organiste en la faulce église papistique, et despuis ministre evangelique en la vraye Eglise. [Geneva: Jean Girard], 1546. 8° Dolet, Étienne. Cantique d’Etienne Dolet, prisonnier à la Conciergerie de Paris, sur sa désolation et sur sa consolation, en vers. Lyon: s.n., 1546. 8° Dolet, Étienne. D 37 Des faictz et gestes du Roi François premier de ce nom. [Paris: Charles Langelier, 1546?]. 8° Fontaine, Charles. La Fontaine d’amour, contenant elegies, epistres et epigrammes. Paris: Jean de Marnef, 1546. 16° La Borderie, Bertrand de. Marguerite de Navarre. Le Discours du voyage de Constantinople envoié dudict lieu à une damoiselle de France par le seigneur de Borderie. La Fable du faulx cuider envoyee à madame Marguerite, fille du roi . . . avec aultres compositions. Paris: Gilles Corrozet and Arnoul Langelier, 1546. 8° [Luther, Martin]. L 90 Exposition sur le cantique virginal, Magnificat, lequel nous apprent la maniere de bien louer et remercier Dieu de ses graces. Agen: A. Villotte, 1546. Malingre, Matthieu. Marot, Clément. M5 L’Epistre de M. Malingre envoyee à Clement Marot: en laquelle est demandee la cause de son departement de France. Avec la responce dudit Marot. Basel: Jacques Estauge, 1546. 8° Pasquille d’Allemagne. P8 Le Pasquille Dallemaigne. Auquel l’histoire de levangile de nouveau retourne en lumiere, et la cause de la guerre presente sont touchees, Aucuns Princes, Estatz, et Citez, sont admonnestez de leur condition et office. Aucuns aussi sont painctz au vif. [Basel?: Jacques Estauge?], 31 October 1546. 4° Rabelais, François. R 22 Tiers livre des faictz et dictz Heroïques du noble Pantagruel. Paris: Chrestien Wechel, 1546. 8° Salmon, Jean (Macrin). Du Bellay, Jean. Odarum libri tres. Io. Bellaii Cardinalis amplissimi Poetmata aliquot elegantissima. Paris: s.n., 1546. 8°

708

appendix b

1547 Bible. O.T. Psalms. Marot, Clément (tr.). Le Maistre, Claude (tr.). Pasquier, Estienne (tr.). Des Périers, Bonaventure (tr.). M. C. [Cordier, Mathurin] (tr.). B 115 Cinquante deux Pseaumes de David, Traduictz en rithme Françoise selon la verité Hebraique, par Clement Marot. Paris: Charles Langelier, 1547. 16° Bourbon, Nicolas. In Francisci Valesii regis obitum inque Henrici eius filii regis adventum, dialogus. N. B. authore. Item alia quaedam eiusdem authoris lectu non iniucunda. Paris: Vascosan, 1547. 4° [Calvin, Jean]. C 12 Advertissement sur la censure qu’ont faicte les Bestes de Sorbonne, touchant les livres qu’ilz appellent heretiques. [Geneva: Jean Girard], 1547. 8° Calvin, Jean. C 69 Contre la secte phantastique et furieuse des Libertins, qui se nomment spirituelz. Avec une epistre de la mesme matiere, contre un certain Cordelier suppost de la secte: lequel est prisonnier à Roan. [Geneva: Jean Girard], 20 August 1547. 8° Erasmus, Desiderius. Macault, Antoine (tr.). Marot, Clément. E 17 Les Apophthegmes, c’est à dire prompt, subtilz, et sententieux dictz de plusieurs rois, chefz d’armées, Philosophes et autres grans personnaiges, tant Grecz que Latins. Paris: Charles Langelier, 1547. 16° Fontaine de vie. F 48 La Fontaine de vie, de laquelle resourdent tresdoulces consolations, singulierement necessaires aux coeurs affligez. Paris: Jean Ruelle, 1547. 16° Héroët, Antoine. La Borderie, Bertrand de. Fontaine, Charles. Andier, Paul. Papillon, Almanque. Opuscules d’amour par Heroet, La Borderie et autres divins poëtes. Lyon: Jean de Tournes, 1547. 8° Images de la mort. Holbein, Hans (ill.). Vauzelles, Jean de. Rhegius, Urbanus. Cyprian, St. Chrysostom, St. John. I8 Les Images de la mort, auxquelles sont adjoustées douze figures. Davantage, La Medecine et l’Ame. La Consolation des Malades. Un Sermon de Mortalité, par sainct Cyprian . . . Un sermon de Patience, par sainct Jehan Chrysostome. Lyon: Jean Frellon, 1547. 8° [Luther, Martin.] Espence, Claude d’ (tr.). L 84 Consolation en adversité. Lyon: Jean de Tournes, 1547. 16° Marcourt, Antoine. M 27 Le livre des marchans, fort utile à toutes gens, pour congnoistre de quelles marchandises on se doit garder d’estre trompé. Lequel a esté nouvellement reveu et fort augmenté, par son premier autheur, M. Anthoine Marcourt bien expert en tel affaire. Strasbourg: Rémy Guédon, 1547. 16° [Marguerite de Navarre. Héroët, Antoine. Colin, Jacques]. Le Fable du faulx cuider, contentant l’histoire des nymphes de Dyane. [Lyon]: Jean de Tournes, 1547. 8°

books related to the navarrian network

709

Marguerite de Navarre. M 32 Marguerites de la Marguerite des princesses, tres-illustre Roine de Navarre. Lyon: Jean de Tournes, 1547. 8° Marot, Clément. Epigrammes de Clement Marot, faictz à l’imitation de Martial. Plus quelques autres Oeuvres dudict Marot, non encores Imprimees par cy devant. Poitiers: Jean and Enguilbert de Marnef, 1547. 8° Sommaires de la Bible. [Estienne, Robert]. S 25 La Doctrine des Chrestiens extraicte du vieil et nouveau Testament. Les dix parolles ou commandemntz de Dieu. Les commandementz de nostre mere saincte Esglise. Les sept sacrements. S.l.n., [1547?]. 8° Sommaires de la Bible. [Estienne, Robert.] S 24 Le Sommaire des livres du Vieil et Nouveau testament. Les dix parolles, ou Commandemens de Dieu. Paris: Robert Estienne, 1547. 16° Theodoret of Cyrus. Espence, Claude d’ (tr.). T8 Sermons de Theodoret, evesque Cyrien, autheur Grec, ancien et catholique: ascavoir, le IX. et X. Lyon: Jean de Tournes, 1547. 16° 1548 Beaulieu, Eustorg de. B6 Le souverain Blason dhonneur, à la louange du tresdigne corps de Jesus Christ. [Basel: Jacques Estauge, 1548?]. 8° Beaulieu, Eustorg de. Gueroult, Guillaume (poem). B4 L’Espinglier des filles. Basel: s.n., 1548. 8° Bible. Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques (tr.). B 56 La sainct Bible en Francois, translatee selon la pure entiere traduction de Sainct Hierome, derechief conferee et entierement revisitee selon les plus anciens et plus correctz exemplaires. Antwerp: Jean Loe, 1548. 2° Erasmus, Desiderius. Marot, Clément (tr.). E 20 Colloque d’erasme traduict de latin en francois par clement marot intitulé, Abbatis et Eruditae. [Paris?]: s.n., [c. 1548]. 16° Lescagne, Tristan de. L 60 Livret intitule C’est Nostre Dame . . . En l’honneur de la terssacrée vierge Marie . . . et à la confussion de ces mal advisez et mauldictz lutheriens. Paris: Jean André, 1548. 8° [Mantova, Benedetto da]. Chrysostom, St. John. [Flaminio, Marcantonio. Calvin, Jean]. Le Maistre, Claude (tr.). B 19 Du Benefice de Jesuchrist crucifié, envers les Chrestiens. Traduit de vulgaire Italien . . . Avec une traduction de la XVI. Homelie de sainct Jean Chrysostome, de la femme Cananée. Paris: Antoine Jurie, 1548. 8° [Marcourt, Antoine]. M 28 Le livre des Marchans, fort utile à toutes gens: pour congnoistre de quelles marchandises on se doit garder d’estre trompé. Nouvellement reveu, et augmenté par son autheur. [Geneva: Jean Girard], 1548. 8°

710

appendix b

Marguerite de Navarre. M 42 Le Triumphe de l’agneau de tresillustre Princesse Marguerite de France Roine de Navarre. Plus une oraison de l’Ame fidele à son Seigneur Dieu. Rouen: Robert and Jean Du Gort, 1548. 16° Marot, Clément. [Marguerite de Navarre]. Le liure de plusieurs pieces, C’est à dire, faict & recuielly de diuers Autheurs, comme de Clement marot, & autres: ce que tu verras en la page suyuante. Lyon: Nicolas Bacquenois, 1548. 8° Rabelais, François. R 32 Le quart livre des faictz et dictz Heroiques du noble Pantagruel. Lyon: [Pierre de Tours], 1548. Salmon, Jean (Macrin). Epigrammatum libri duo. Poitiers: s.n., 1548. 8° Viret, Pierre. Exposition familiere de l’oraison de nostre seigneur Jesus Christ, et des choses dignes de consyderer sur icelle, faite en forme de dialogue. Geneva: Jean Girard, 1548. 8° 1549 Alciato, Andrea. Aneau, Barthélemy (tr.). Emblemes d’Alciat, de nouveau translatez en françois. Lyon: Macé Bonhomme for Guillaume Rouillé, 1549. 8° Aneau, Barthélemy. Pasquil antiparadoxe. Dialogue contre le paradoxe de la faculté de vinaigre. Lyon: [Macé Bonhomme], 1549. 8° Bible. O.T. Psalms. Marot, Clément (tr.). B 124 Cinquante Pseaumes de David. Traduictz en rithme Françoise selon la verité Hebraique . . . Avec le latin en marge. A iceulx sont adjoustez autres Pseaumes et Cantiques. Paris: Gilles Corrozet, 1549. Bible. O.T. Psalms. Poictevin, Jean (tr.). Et al. Vingt et deux octonaires du psalme centdixneuf. Treize psalmes traduictz par diuers autheurs. Auec plusieurs cantiques, lesquelz, n’ont esté imprimez iusques à maintenant. S.l.n., c. 1549. 16° Bourbon, Nicolas. Conjugum illustriss. Antonii a Borbonis, Vindocinorum ducis, et Janae Navarrorum principis epithalamion. Paris: Vascosan, 1549. 8° Bourbon, Nicolas. Conjugum illustrios Antonii a Borbonis, Vindocinorum ducis, et Janae Navarrorum principis epithalamion. Paris: Vascosan, 1549. 8° Calvin, Jean. Du Bois, Michel (poem). C 76 Petit Traicté de la saincte cene de nostre Seigneur Jesus Christ. Auquel est demonstré la vraie institution, profit et utilité d’icelle. [Geneva: Jean Girard], 1549. 8°

books related to the navarrian network

711

Erasmus, Desiderius. Marot, Clément (tr.). E 22 Deux colloques d’Erasme plus le Balladin du mesme Marot. Paris: Guillaume Thibout, 1549. 16° Erasmus, Desiderius. Marot, Clément (tr.). E 21 Deux colloques d’Erasme . . . Abbatis et Eruditae, l’autre Virgo Misogamos. Lyon: Jean Le Converd, 1549. 16° Exposition de l’Oraison de nostre Seigneur Jesus, du Symbole Apostolique, et des dix commandemens de la loi. [Calvin, Jean (extracts)]. E 77 Exposition de l’Oraison de nostre Seigneur Jesus, . . . Avec l’exposition du Symbole Apostolique . . . et aussi une exposition sur les dix Commandemens de la Loi. [Paris]: s.n., [1549?]. 8° Fontaine de vie. F 49 La Fontaine de Vie: de laquelle distillent tresdoulces consolations, singulierement necessaire aux cueurs affligez. Plus y est adjoustée l’instruction pour les enfans: le tout reveu, et augmenté tout de nouveau. Lyon: Jacques Berion, 1549. 8° [Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques. Et al.]. L 25 Les Epistres et evangiles des cinquante, et deux Dimenches de l’An. Avecques breves et tresutiles expositions d’icelles. “Rouen”[Lyon?]: “Claude Treset”, 1549. 16° Marguerite de Navarre. M 33 Marguerites de la Marguerite des Princesses. Lyon: Simon Du Bois dit de La Haye, Guillaume Rouillé, Pierre de Tours, and Thibaud Payen, 1549. 16° Marguerite de Navarre. Le triomphe de l’agneau. Lyon: Pierre de Tours, 1549. 16° Marot, Clément. La complaincte d’un pastoureau chrestien. Rouen: F. Martial, 1549. 16° Marot, Clément. [Marguerite de Navarre]. Le Livre de plusieurs pieces, c’est à dire faict et recueilly de divers autheurs, comme Clement Marot et autres. Lyon: Thibaud Payen, 1549. 16° Moyen de parvenir. M 83 Le Moyen de parvenir à la congnoissance de Dieu, et consequemment à salut. S.l.n., 1549? Rabelais, François? R 36 Le cinquiesme livre des faictz et dictz du noble Pantagruel. Auquelz sont comprins, les grans Abus, et d’esordonnêe vie de, Plusieurs Estatz, de ce monde. S.l.n., 1549. 16° Rabelais, François. La Sciomachie et festins faits à Rome au palais de mon seigneur Reverendissime cardinal Du Bellay, pour l’heureuse naissance de mon seigneur d’Orléans. Le tout extraict d’une copie des lettres escrites à mon seigneur le Rev. cardinal. Lyon: s.n., 1549. 8° Salmon, Jean (Macrin). Epitome uitae domini nostri Iesu Christi. Varia item poematia et de sacra Regis unctione et de eiusdem triumphali in urbem Lutetiam introitu. Paris: s.n., 1549. 8°

712

appendix b

1550 Alciato, Andrea. Aneau, Barthélemy (tr.). Eskrich, Pierre (ill.). Emblemes d’Alciat. Lyon: Macé Bonhomme, 1550. 16° Arrêts et ordonnances. Beaulieu, Eustorg de. A 21 Arrestz et ordonnances royaux de la supreme, treshaute et souveraine Court du Royaume des Cieux, Avec la Generale Croisade, jadis donnée, et maintenant confirmée par nostre sainct Pere Dieu. [Geneva: Jean Girard], 1550. 4° Beaulieu, Eustorg de. B5 L’Espinglier des filles, composé par Eustorg, aultrement Hector de Beaulieu, . . . Revue et augmente par lui mesme, despuis sa premiere impression, comme on verra. Basel: [Robert Winter], 8 April 1550. 8° Bible. O.T. Psalms. Marot, Clément (tr.). Aurigny, Gilles d’ (tr.). B 136 Cent Psalmes de David Traduictz . . . selon la verité Hebraique, Par Clement Marot, Giles Aurigny, Et autres. Rouen: Robert and Jean Du Gort, 1550. 16° Bible. O.T. Psalms. Marot, Clément (tr.). Cordier, Mathurin (tr.). B 133 Cinquante deux Pseames de David. Paris: Guillaume Merlin, 1550. 16° Brief discours de la republique françoise, desirant la lecture des livres de la saincte Escripture. B 262 Brief discours de la republique françoise, desirant la lecture des livres de la saincte Escripture (et iceulx approuvés par les docteurs de l’eglise) lui estre loisible en sa langue vulgaire. Caen: Martin and Pierre Philippe, [1550?]. 8° Calvin, Jean. Badius, Conrad (poem). C 66 Des scandales qui empeschent aujourd’hui beaucoup de gens de venir à la pure doctrine de l’Evangile, et en desbauchent d’autres. Geneva: Jean Crespin, 1550. 4° Farel, Guillaume. F 16 Le Glaive de la parolle veritable, tiré contre le Bouclier de defense, duquel un Cordelier libertin s’est voulu servir, pour approuver ses fausses et damnables opinions. Geneva: Jean Girard, 1550. 8° Mazurier, Martial. M 50 Instruction et doctrine à se bien confesser, et prier Dieu pour ses pechez, extraicte des sainctes escriptures: tant du vieil que du nouveau testament. [Paris]: s.n., 1550. 8° More, Thomas. Aneau, Barthélemy (tr.). Le Blond, Jean (tr.). Budé, Guillaume (preface). La description de l’isle d’Utopie, où est comprins le miroer des républicques du monde . . . rédigé . . . par . . . Thomas Morus . . . avec l’épistre liminaire composée par M. Budé. Paris: Charles Langelier, 1550. 8° [Musculus, Wolfgang. Calvin, Jean]. Poullain, Valérand (tr.). M 84 Le Temporiseur. Par Eutichius Myonius. Avec plusieurs bons conseilz et advis sus la mesme matiere. Savoir est comment chascun fidele se doibt maintenir entre les Papistes. London: Stephan Mierdman, 4 [October] 1550. 8° Salmon, Jean (Macrin). Naeniarum libri tres, de Gelonide Borsala uxore charissima, quae annos XXX, menses II, dies XV nata, obiit XIIII Iunii, Anno Domini MDXXXXX. Paris: s.n., 1550. 8°

books related to the navarrian network

713

Seymour, Anne, Jane, and Margaret. Denisot, Nicolas (ed.). Et al. Annae, Margaritae, Janae sororum virginum heroidum anglarum in mortem . . . Margaritae Vaesiae . . . Hecatodistichon [Nicolaus Denisot edidit]. Paris: Regnault and Claude Chaudiere, 1550. 8° [Sleidan, Johannes]. S 20 D’un nouveau chef qui au temps des Empereurs s’esleva à Rome. Livre contenant comment et par quelz moyens s‘est eslevée la Papauté, la decadence d’icelle, ses merveilleuses pratiques, et en somme ce qu’on en peut esperer de ce temps. Geneva: Adam and Jean Rivery, 1550. 8° Sainte-Marthe, Charles de. In obitum incomparabilis Margaritae, illustrissimae Navarrorum Reginae, Oratio funebris per Carolum Sancto-Marthanum, eiusdem Reginae, dum illa viveret, apud Alençonienses Consiliarium et Supplicum libellorum Magistrum. Paris: Regnault and Claude Chaudiere, 1550. 4° Sainte-Marthe, Charles de. Oraison funebre de l’incomparable Marguerite, roine de Navarre, duchessse d’Alençon. Composée en latin par Charles de Saincte Marthe et traduicte par lui en langue françoise. Plus epitaphes de ladicte dame par aulcuns poetes françoise. Paris: Regnault and Claude Chaudiere, 1550. 4° Sainte-Marthe, Charles de. Oraison funebre sur le trespas de Françoise d’Alençon, duchesse de Beaumont. Paris: s.n., 1550. 8° Sainte-Marthe, Charles de. In Psalmum nonagesimum pia ad modum et Christiana Meditatio, Per Carolum Sancto marthanum Fontebraldensem. [Paris]: s.n., 1550. 8° [Vergerio, Pier Paolo]. V6 La Declaracion du jubilè qui doit etre à Rome l’an M.D.L. [Basel: Jacques Estauge, 1550?]. 8° 1551 Bodius, Hermann [Bucer, Martin?]. B 216 La premiere [-seconde] partie de l’union de plusieurs passages de l’Escriture sainte: extraite des docteurs autentiques de l’Eglise Chrestienne. Revue et corrigée. [Geneva: Philibert Hamelin], 1551. 8° Calvin, Jean. C 67 Des scandales qui empeschent aujourd’hui beaucoup de gens de venir à la pure doctrine de l’Evangile, et en desbauchent d’autres. Geneva: Jean Crespin, 1551. 8° Calvin, Jean. Sturm, Johann (preface). C 60 Institution de la religion Chrestienne: composee en latin . . . et translatée en Francois . . . depuis de nouveau reveuë et augmentée: en laquelle est comprise une somme de toute la Chrestienté. Geneva: [Laurant de Normandie], 20 October 1551. 2° Calvin, Jean. Melanchthon, Philipp. Bucer, Martin. Martyr, Peter. C 80 Petit traicté monstrant que doit faire un homme fidele . . . Ensemble l’Excuse faicte sur cela aux Nicodemites. [Geneva: Jean Girard and René de Bienassis], 1551. 8°

714

appendix b

Lizet, Pierre. Adversus pseudoevangelicum toxicum [haeresim] Commentarii. Paris: Poncet and Vascosan, 1551. 4° Seymour, Anne, Jane, and Margaret. Denisot, Nicolas (ed.). Ronsard, Pierre de. Bourbon, Nicolas. Et al. Le Tombeau de Marguerite de Valois, Royne de Navarre. Faict premierement en Disticques Latins par les trois Soeurs Princesse en Angleterre. Depuis traduictz en Grec, Italien, et François par Plusieurs des excellentez Poëtes de la France. Paris: Michel Fezandat, Robert Granlon, and Vincent Sertenas, 1551. 8° “Sainte-Marthe, Charles de.” [Bibliander, Theodorus?]. De sacramentis fidei et unionis christianae. S.l.n., [before 1556]. II. Manuscript Books of the Navarrian Network 1521 Jordan, Raymond. Livre de l’idiote de vraie patience. Trans. Guillaume Briçonnet. Meaux: Not published, December 1521. Lost work. Briçonnet, Corr. 1, no. 20, 102, 22 December 1521; Rice, Prefatory Epistles, 413. 1523 Berquin, Louis de. Apologia. Before June 1523. Lost work. d’Argentre 1, pt. 2, 405A; vol. 2, xi [no. 4 D]. Berquin, Louis de. Le Catholique du Pape et de Moise. Before June 1523. Lost work. d’Argentre 1, pt. 2, 405A–B; vol. 2, 405A–B; 2, xi. Higman, Censorship, 74. Berquin, Louis de. Le Debat de pieté et superstition. Before June 1523. Lost work. d’Argentre 1, pt. 2, 405A–B; vol. 2, xi. Higman, Censorship, 74. Berquin, Louis de. Epistola apologetica. Before June 1523. Lost work. d’Argentre 1, pt. 2, 405A–B; vol. 2, xi [no. 16 Q in Berquin’s library]. Berquin, Louis de. Iuri canonico et toti ecclesiasticae libertati scandalose detrahens, constitutionum ecclesiasticarum fi deles obligantium sub alio nomine est enervativus, praelatis item ecclesiae, praesertim Romanis tyrannidem contumeliose impingens. Before June 1523. Lost work. d’Argentre 1, pt. 2, 405A–B; vol. 2, xi [no. H E]. Berquin, Louis de. Rationes Lutheri, quibus omnes Christianos esse sacerdotes molitur suadere. Before June 1523. Lost work. d’Argentre 1, pt. 2, 405B; vol. 2, xi [no. T]. Berquin, Louis de. Rationes propter quas Lutherus Decretales caeterosque Juris Canonici libros igni publice tradidit [in French]. Before June 1523. Lost work. d’Argentre 1, pt. 2, 405B; 2, xi [no. 18 S]. Higman, Censorship, 74. Berquin, Louis de. Speculum theologastorum. Before June 1523. Lost work. d’Argentre 1, pt. 2, 405A–B; vol. 2, 405B; 2, xi [no. 21 X]. Berquin, Louis de. De usu et efficacia missae. Before June 1523. Lost work. d’Argentre 1, pt. 2, 405A–B; vol. 2, xi [no number].

books related to the navarrian network

715

Erasmus, Desiderius. Le Paradis du Pape Jule [Julius exclusus]. [Trans. Louis de Berquin]. Before June 1523. Lost work. D’Argentré 1, pt. 2, 405A–B; vol. 2, xi. Higman, Censorship, 74. Hutten, Ulrich von. La trirade romaine [Trias Romana]. [Trans. Louis de Berquin]. Before June 1523. Lost work. d’Argentré 1, pt. 2, 405A–B; vol. 2, xi. Higman, Censorship, 74. Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques, tr. L’Evangile de saint Mathieu traduit en françois. [After 1523]. Location unknown. Fichier Picot, no. 690. Catalogue of the library of the late George Offor, 1865, 261, no. 3060. Delisle, Cabinet des MSS 1, 187. Mazurier, Martial. “Unnamed ‘opusculum.’” Submitted for censure before 30 July 1523. Lost work. Clerval, 373. 1524 Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques,. “Les Epistres de St. Paul.” Sent 10 January 1524. Lost manuscript? Briçonnet, Correspondance 2, no. 77, 92–93. Briçonnet, Guillaume. “Letter on the Ethiopian.” 6 May 1524. Briçonnet, Correspondance 2, nos. 95 and 102, 161. Farel, Guillaume, ed. “Livres françois.” Before 18 November 1524. Lost work. Herminjard 1, no. 128, 306. Farel, Guillaume. Antichristi. [Basel?], before 2 September 1524. Lost work. Herminjard 1, no. 120, 281–3. Farel, Guillaume. “Dialogue between Erasmus and Farel.” [Basel?], before 27 October 1524. Lost work. Herminjard 1, no. 121, 286. Farel, Guillaume. “Treatise against Erasmus.” before 27 October 1524. Lost work. Herminjard 1, no. 121, 286 and no. 126, 300. Lambert, François. Centum sexdecim conclusiones Francisci Lamberti [for a disputation at Metz in 1524]. Written in 1524, seized 1531. Lost work. German translation extant. Bodenmann, “Bibliotheca Lambertiniana,” 26. Higman, Censorship, 83. Le Sueur, Nicolas. De vana rei Christianae (quam publicam vocant) administratione. Lost work, conceivably the same as Higman E 71 or T 15. First mentioned 15 May 1524, Herminjard 1, no. 102, 216–219. Brief Oekolampads, 1, no. 203, 289. Roussel to Le Sueur, December 1525, Herminjard 1, no. 168, 414–415. Luther, Martin. Des vœux monastiques [French translation of De votis monasticis Trans. Antoine Papillon or Louis de Berquin, 1524]. Lost manuscript. Herminjard 1, no. 132, 313–316, 314–315. ZW 2, 346. Luther, Martin. Le pater noster composé par Madame la duchesse. [Le pater nostre faict en translation et dialogue par la roine de Navarre, 1524?]. Trans. Marguerite de Navarre. Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal MS 3458; Paris BnF F.fr. 1723 (posterior). Translation of Luther’s Explanatio dominicae orationis (1520), trans. [Georg Spalatin?], WA 30, 79 ff. Moore, La Réforme allemande et la littérature française, appendix 1, 431–441 for text (French compared with the German original, not the Latin translation). Cf. Briçonnet,

716

appendix b

Correspondance 2, no. 103, 162, and Giacone, “Le premier ouvrage de Marguerite de Navarre.” Luther, Martin. De la préparation à la mort, [1524?]. Trans. Antoine d’Oraison. Bibliothèque de Carpentras, MS 117. Robert Marichal, “Antoine d’Oraison, premier traducteur français de Luther,” BHR 9 (1947), 78–108. Marguerite de Navarre. “Four rondeaux on the death of Charlotte Valois.” [c. September 1524]. Marguerite de Navarre, Dialogue en forme de vision nocturne, ed. Renja Salminen, Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, ser. B, vol. 227 (Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1985), 7–12. “Placard against Papal Jubilee Indulgence.” Meaux, posted December 1524. Lost work. Charles Schmidt, “Gérard Roussel, inculpé d’hérésie à Meaux, 1525,” BSHPF 10 (1861), 220. Roussel, Gérard. “Commentary on Romans.” Meaux, before 5 October 1524. Lost work. Herminjard 1, no. 124, 291–294. Ulrich of Würtemberg. “Ulric de Wurtemberg aux gouverneurs de Besançon.” Trans. Anémond de Coct. Before September 1524. Lost work. German and Latin editions extant. Herminjard 1, no. 116, 267–270 and no. 120, 280–284; 283: Coct to Farel, September 1524. 1525 Erasmus, Desiderius. Brieve admononition de la maniere de prier. [Trans. Louis de Berquin]. Before 1 May 1525. Lost work. Printed in 1525 by Simon Du Bois. d’Argentré 2, pt. 1, 40–42. Farge, Registre 1, 94A–95A. Higman, Censorship, 74–76. Erasmus, Desiderius. Declamation des louanges de mariage. [Trans. Louis de Berquin]. [Before 1 May 1525. Lost work. Printed in 1525 by Simon Du Bois. d’Argentré 2, pt. 1, 40–42. Farge, Registre 1, 94A–95A. Higman, Censorship, 74–76. Erasmus, Desiderius. Le Symbol des Apostres, qu’on dit vulgairement le Credo, contant les articles de la Foi. [Trans. Louis de Berquin]. Before 1 May 1525. Lost work. Printed in 1525 by Simon Du Bois. d’Argentré 2, pt. 1, 40–42. Farge, Registre 1, 94A–95A. Higman, Censorship, 74–76. Erasmus, Desiderius. La declamation de la paix, se complaignant de ce qu’elle est de chacun deboutée et chassée. [Trans. Louis de Berquin]. Before 1 June 1525. Lost work. Published in 1531 at Lyon by Pierre de Vingle. D’Argentré 2, pt. 1, 40–42. Farge, Registre 1, 94A–95A. Higman, Censorship, 74–77. Facsimile of the Vingle edition, La complainte de la paix (1531?), in Telle, ed., TLF 248 (Geneva: Droz, 1978). Farel, Guillaume. “Index.” Before 18 September 1525. Lost work. Herminjard 1, no. 160, 385. Farel, Guillaume, Martin Luther, et al. Livre de prières, avec les Sept psaumes de la pénitence. [1525–1538]. BnF F.fr. 19246. Francis Higman, “Farel et Luther dans la Bibliothèque d’Anne de Montmorency?” BHR 53 (1991), 415–418. Presentation manuscript copy of l’Oraison de Jesuchrist, qui est le Pater noster, et le Credo, . . . Les sept pseaulmes: et autres choses tresutiles. Higman, Piety, F 25.

books related to the navarrian network

717

Saulnier, Matthieu. “Defense of Pauvan.” Meaux, before 9 December 1525. Lost work. Farge, Registre 1, 120, no. 133A [144B]; 1526 n. 47. d’Argentré 2, pt. 1, 30. 1526 Arande, Michel d’. “Commentary on the Psalms.” [1526]. Lost work. As reported by Henry Heller in CE article. Berquin, Louis de. Combien que l’homme soit justifié. Before 1 March 1526. Lost work. Farge, Registre 1, 2, 6, 12 March 1526; d’Argentré 2, pt. 1, 40–42. Berquin, Louis de. Ludovici a Berquin adversus calumnias quorumdam Epistolas Apologetica ad amicum. Before 1 March 1526. A second manuscript copy of the same work seized from Berquin in 1523 and burned. Farge, Registre 1, 2, 6, 12 March 1526; d’Argentré 2, pt. 1, 40–42. Berquin, Louis de? Passio Lutheri. Before 1 March 1526. Lost work. Farge, Registre 1, 2, 6, 12 March 1526; d’Argentré 2, pt. 1, 40–42. Jerome, St. Epistre de Saint Hierosme contre Vigilance. [Trans. Louis de Berquin]. Before 1 March 1526. Lost work. Farge, Registre 1, 2, 6, 12 March 1526; d’Argentré 2, pt. 1, 40–42. Roussel, Gérard, tr. Le Pentatuque. Presented to Marguerite de Navarre before 27 August 1526. Lost work. Herminjard 1, no. 182, 448–451; Schmidt, Gérard Roussel, no. 9, 197–198. 1528–1531 Placard at Meaux: Pseudo-papal bull “faisant croire que le pape avait enjoint ‘de lire, relire et faire lire des livres de Luther.’” Meaux, before 12 January 1528. Lost work. Mention in AN X1A 1531, fol. 80 (13 January 1528). Imbart, Origines 3, 268; Veissière, Guillaume Briçonnet, 393. Brenz, Johannes. Initiatoire instruction en la religion chrestienne pour les enffans. Trans. Gérard Roussel?, Simon Du Bois?, and “Claudius.” [after July 1529?]. Paris BA MS 5096 réserve. See articles by Venard and Orth. W. Köhler, “Bibliographia Brentiana,” nos. 30 and 35. Caroli, Pierre. Tout en un mot. 1530. Vatican Library. Piaget, “Documents inédits sur la Réformation dans le Pays de Neuchâtel,” vol. 1, 493–507 with transcription. Zwingli, Ulrich. Christianae fidei brevis et clara expositio ad regem Christianum. [Fidei expositio]. Zurich, July 1531. Paris BnF MS Latin 3673. ZW 6, pt. 5, 1–163. 1533–1536 Morand, Jean. Dialogue Lutheri et anti-Lutheri. 1533 or before. Lost work. d’Argentré 2, pt. 1, 102–119. “Placards against indulgences.” Posted 29 March 1533. Lost works. Farge, Registre 1, 284–285, 377 A & B. Herminjard 3, 54–61, with a responding placard against the heretics printed in Crouzet, Genèse, 220–221.

718

appendix b

Roussel, Gérard or Calvin, Jean? “Commentary on . . .?” Before 27 October 1533. Lost work. Herminjard 3, no. 437, 105. [Roussel, Gérard]. Epitome. Before 27 October 1533. Lost work. Herminjard 3, no. 437, 105. L’arbre de la Foye chrestienne. Submitted for censure 15 December 1534. Lost work. d’Argentré 1, index, viii–ix. Higman, Censorship, 85. Bujanda, Index 1, no. 366. La remonstrance de la vertu insuperable et fruits inestimables de la foi chrestienne. Submitted for censure 15 December 1534. Lost work. d’Argentré 1, index, VIII–IX. Higman, Censorship, 85. Bujanda, Index 1, no. 366. Farel, Guillaume and Pierre Viret. “Request to German Princes for intervention on behalf of the Vaudois of France.” 4 August 1535. Herminjard 3, no. 521, 327–332. Zeitschrift für die historische Theologie (1852): 252 ff. German Protestant princes? “Supplication to Francis I on behalf of the Vaudois.” September 1535. Lost work. Herminjard 3, no. 530, 356–362. Vaudois of Provence. “Confession de Foi des Vaudois.” c. August 1535. Lost work. Herminjard 3, no. 530, 356–362. Fontaine, Charles. Epistres, chantz royaulx, ballades, rondeaulx, et dixains faictz a l’honneur de Dieu & Epistres de St. Paul aux Colossiens. [c. 1536]. Vatican, Reg. lat. 1630. See Raffael Scalamandrè, ed., Un poeta della Preriforma: Charles Fontaine (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1970). Thiboust, Jacques, ed. L’ordre de la triomphante et magnifique monstre du Mystere des saincts actes des Apostres, faite à Bourges, le dimanche, dernier jour d’avril, 1536. c. 1536. Bourges BM MS 317, bound with Imprimés, D 1088. Boyssoné, Jean de. “Latin poetry.” 1530s onwards. Toulouse MS 835 and 836. Ed. Jacoubet, Les Poésies latines de Jehan de Boyssoné. 1540s Bizet, Tristan de, bishop of Saintes. Exposition de l’oraison de nostre Seigneur Jesus, de lequelle il a commandé ès siens estre prié; avec l’exposition du symbole apostolique, divisé en douze articles de nostre foi catholique: et une exposition sur les dix commandements de la loi. 1540s? Paris BSG 8° 600 INV 193 Rés. Causse, “Familière Exposition.” Pocquet, Antoine. “Spiritualist tracts.” [1540s]. Lost works, partially quoted in Calvin’s response, see CO 7, Contra la furieuse secte de Libertins Spirituels. Roussel, Gérard. “Livre sur S. Sacrement.” [1540s]. Lost work. Florimond de Raemond, 850, cf. 921–922. Roussel, Gérard. “Mémoires de Gérard Roussel sur l’opinion de Calvin, touchant la Cène.” [1540s]. Lost work. Florimond de Raemond, 921–922, cf. 850. Fontaine, Charles, trans. Premier livre de la prédestination des sainctz, composé par sainct Augustin. [c. 1540]. BnF F.fr. 13201. See Richmond Laurin Hawkins, Maistre Charles Fontaine Parisien, Harvard Studies in Romance

books related to the navarrian network

719

Languages 2 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1916), esp. 45–46 and 268. Les arrestz et ordonnances de la cour celeste. Censured 1 June 1541. A similarly titled work by Jean Girard from 1550 is in the British Library according to Higman, Censorship, 86–87. d’Argentré I, index, xi–xii. Ce sont les grands pardons et indulgences. Censured 1 June 1541. Lost work. Higman suggests that it may be the same as “Les grans pardons et indulgences” [Geneva: Vingle, 1533]. Higman, Censorship, 86–87. d’Argentré, index, xi–xii. C’est la bonne coustume. Censured 1 June 1541. Lost work. Higman, Censorship, 86–87. d’Argentré I, index, xi–xii. “Epistola ad fratrem qui incipit ‘La grace, paix et misericorde de Dieu.’” Censured 1 June 1541. Lost work. Higman, Censorship, 86–87. d’Argentré I, index, xi–xii. Introduction familiere à facilement et en peu de temps apprendre la grammaire latine, faite en forme de dialogue, auquel sont introduits les personnages. Censured 1 June 1541. Lost work. Higman, Censorship, 86–87. d’Argentré I, index, xi–xii. Roussel, Gérard. Familiere exposition and Forme de visite de diocese. [Between 1543 and 1550]. BnF F.fr. 419. See Landa and both articles by Causse. Instruction et salutaire admonition pour parfaictement vivre en ce monde, et comment en toute nostre adversité serons patiens. Lost work. Higman, Piety, I 53: “J. Calvin, CO VII, 242: title of one of the ‘libertin’ texts, ‘seulement d’une feuille’, refuted by Calvin in ‘Contra la secte . . .’ [C 68] (1545). No other trace apart from this mention by Calvin.” Higman says this is a printed book, but it may have been simply a manuscript. Farel, Guillaume. Epistre à tous seigneurs, et peuples et pasteurs à qui le Seigneur m’a donné accez, qui m’ont aidé et assisté en l’œuvre de nostre Seigneur Jesus, et envers lesquels Dieu s’est. servi de moi, en la predication de son sainct Evangile. [1548?]. Copy extant. Gilmont, “Farel,” 27. Fick, 1865, 162–186. Aubert, “Un opuscule de Farel.” III. The Navarrian Network’s Reading List 1524 Listed below are the books that members of the Navarrian Network read or sought to acquire during 1524. This working library is discussed in chapter 7. These titles have been reconstituted from more or less explicit references in the letters of network members from 1524 in Herminjard 1, nos. 83–133. Herminjard missed some allusions, and many of his bibliographical citations have been completed below. Further bibliographical research should yield exact titles and dates for the remaining short titles and “allusions” to works mentioned in the sources that have not yet been identified. Herminjard 3 has the index for volume 1.

720 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

21.

appendix b Bible. Ximenes, ed., Polyglot Bible of Alcala. Bible. Latin, Wittenberg edition “in two columns.” Bible. Old Testament. Job and Psalms. German. Bible. Old Testament. Psalms and Prophets. Aramaic [Chaldean] edition. Bible. New Testament. Luther’s 1522 German translation. Brunfels, Otto. De ratione decimarum Othonis Brunfelsii propositiones; Hierony. Quicquid habent clerici, pauperum est; August. Et eleemosynae pauperum, sunt decimae. [Strasbourg: Johann Schott, 1524]. Brunfels, Otto. Othonis Brunfelsii pro Ulricho Hutten vita defuncto, ad Erasmi Roterod. Spongiam responsio, ab autore recognita. (Strasbourg: Johann Schott, March 1524). Bugenhagen, Johannes. Pomerani hypothesin libri. Bugenhagen, Johannes. Joannis Pomerani Bugenhagii in librum Psalmorum interpretatio, Wittembergae publice lecta. Basel: Adam Petri, March 1524. Bugenhagen, Johannes. Scholia Pomerani in 10 Epistolas Pauli. [pub. before 8 April 1524]. Clichtove, Josse. Antilutherus Iudoci Clichtovei Neoportuensis doctoris theologi, tres libros complectens. Paris: Simon de Colines, 13 October 1524. Coct, Anémond de. Luther, Martin. Zwingli, Ulrich. In hoc libello contenta: Annemundi Cocti equitis Galli ad lectorem epistola; Christianissimi doctoris Martini Lutheri ad illustrissimum principem Carolum Sabaudiae ducem epistola; Huldrici Zuinglii Tigurini episcopi vigilantissimi ad Petrum Sebivillam Gratianopolitanum ecclesiasten epistola. [Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, February 1524]. De instituendis pueris. A work by either Zwingli, Erasmus, or possibly Otto Brunfels, De disciplina et institutione puerorum. Erasmus, Desiderius. Brevis admonitio de modo orandi. Erasmus, Desiderius. Exomologensis sive modus confitendi. Basel: Froben, 1524. Farel, Guillaume. Antichristi. [Manuscript reply to Clichtove’s Antilutherus?]. Farel, Guillaume. “Dialogue between Erasmus and Farel.” [Manuscript or lost work in Latin?]. Farel, Guillaume. Epistre Chrestiene. [Basel]. No copy extant. Farel, Guillaume. “Libellus against Erasmus.” [French manuscript or lost work]. Farel, Guillaume. Le Pater noster, et le Credo en françoys, avec une tresbelle, et tresutile exposition, et declaration sur chascun faicte en forme de contemplation et oraison fort proufitable pour enflamber le cueur. [Basel: Andreas Cratander, August 1524]. [Farel, Guillaume?] Determinatio Facultatis theologie Parisiensis, super aliquibus propositionibus, certis à locis (De quibus Ptolomeus 19 tabula Africe) nuper ad eam delatis, de veneratione sanctorum, de canone missae (Expolitio). [Basel: Andreas Cratander, March] 1524.

books related to the navarrian network

721

22. Hess, Johannes. “Theses from Breslau” [?Apologia inclyti senatus populique Vratislaviensis pro novi pastoris nova electione. Breslau: Kaspar Libisch, 1523.]. 23. Hesshus, Tilemann. Apologia Simonis Hessi adversus dominum Roffensem. [s.l.n.d.]. 24. Lambert, François. “Commentary on Hosea and Malachai.” 25. Lambert, Francois. Commentariorum Francisci Lamberti Avenionensi theologi De sacro coniugio, et adversus pollutissimum regni perditionis caelibatum, Liber, in LXIX positiones divisus, quibus quicquid ad Matrimonium spectat, complexus est. Strasbourg: Johannes Herwagen, May 1524. Dedicated to Francis I. 26. Lambert, François. De fidelium vocatione in regnum Christi, id est ecclesiam; De vocatione ad ministeria eius, maxime ad Episcopatum; Item de vocatione Matthiae per sortem, ac similibus; Et ibi multa de sortibus, Francisco Lamberto autore. [Strasbourg: Johann Herwagen, 1525]. 27. Lambert, François. In cantica canticorum Salomonis, libellum quidem sensibus altiss. in quo sublimia sacri coniugii mysteria, quae in Christo et ecclesia sunt, pertractantur, Francisci Lamb. avionensis comentarii, Wittembergae praelecti. Strasbourg: [Johann Herwagen, August] 1524. Dedicated to Francis I. 28. Lonicer, Johannes. Catechesis de bona Dei voluntate, erga quemvis Christianum, deque sanctorum cultu et invocatione. [Strasbourg: Johann Schott, 1523]. 29. Luther, Martin. Adversus falso nominatum ordinem episcoporum. Wittenberg: [Johann Rhau-Grunenberg], 1523. 30. Luther, Martin. De instituendis ministris ecclesiae, ad clarissimum senatum Pragensem Bohemiae. Wittenberg: [Lucas Cranach and Christian Döring], 1523. 31. Luther, Martin. De votis monasticis, Martini Lutheri iudicium. Wittenberg: [Melchior Lotter the younger, 1521]. Translated by Antoine Papillon and dedicated by him to Marguerite de Navarre. See manuscripts below for 1524. 32. Luther, Martin. Enarrationes Martini Lvtheri in Epistolas D. Petri duas, et Iudae unam, in quibus quicquid omnino ad Christianismum pertinet, consumatiss. digestum leges. Trans. Martin Bucer for the use of the “brothers in France.” Strasbourg: Johann Herwagen, 4 July 1524. 33. Luther, Martin. Formula missae et communionis pro ecclesia Vuittembergensi. “Wittenberg” [Strasbourg: Wolfgang Kopfel], 1523. 34. Luther, Martin. Epistola Lutheriana ad Leonem Decimum summum Pontificem. Tractatus de libertate Christiana. Wittenberg, 1520. 35. Paquillus Marranus exul, lectori salutem: Vidisti saepiuscule lector labores nostros quibus hactenus contra corruptos nostri aevi mores sudavimus; Nunc cognosce quid in novos illos theologistas adulatores, ausi fuimus; Quidve Marforio nostro auspice obtinuerimus a pontifice Romana versa pagella quae sunt ostendet; Lege, et probabis.

722

appendix b

36. Melanchthon, Philipp. Adversus furiosum parisiensis theologastrorum decretum, Philippi Melanchthonis pro Luthero apologia. [Basel: Adam Petri, 1521]. 37. Melanchthon, Philipp. Annotata quaedam Melanchthonis in Paulum, Lucam et Joannem. 38. Myconius, Oswald. Ad sacerdotes Helvetiae, qui Tigurinis male loquuntur suasoria, ut male loqui desinant. Zurich: Christoph Froschauer the elder, 1524. 39. Oecolampadius, Johannes. “Commentaries on Isaiah.” [Published in 1525, thus a prepublication manuscript based on lectures at the University of Basel in 1523?]. 40. Oecolampadius, Johannes. De erogatione eleemosynarum. 1523. 41. Oecolampadius, Johannes. De non habendo pauperum delectu, Io. Oecolampadii Epistola utilissima. Basel: [Andreas Cratander], 1523. 42. Oecolampadius, Johannes. De Passione Domini, de venerando et laudando Deo in Maria, de invocatione divorum contra [Joannem] Fabrum. 1523. 43. Oecolampadius, Johannes. De risu paschali, Oecolampadii, ad V. Capitonem theologum epistola apologetica. Basel: Johann Froben, 1518. 44. Oecolampadius, Johannes. Enchiridion graecae literaturae. 1523. 45. Oecolampadius, Johannes. In epistola Joannis apostoli catholicam primam Joannis Oecolampadii demegoriae, hoc est: homiliae una et XX. Basel: Andreas Cratander, June 1524. 46. Oecolampadius, Johannes. Quod non sit onerosa Christianis confessio paradoxon Ioannis Oecolampadii; Experire lector, quam leve sit onus Domini, quam ubique diligenter curet Ecclesia, ne suos oneret; Rara, erudita, grata, et necessaria reperies. Basel: Andreas Cratander, 1521. 47. Oecolampadius, Johannes. Sermones de gaudio resurrectionis et mysterio tridui. 1521. 48. Oecolampadius, Johannes. Textus libri Geneseos secundum LXX. interpretes. 1523. 49. Pellikan, Konrad. “Works shown to Erasmus.” 50. University of Paris, Faculty of Theology. Determinatio Facultatis theologiae Parisiensis super aliquibus propositionibus certis e locis nuper ad eam delatis, de veneratione sanctorum, de canone missae deque sustentatione ministrorum altaris et caeteris quibusdam. Paris: Jean Petit [& Pierre Vidoue, c. 2 December 1523]. 51. Ulrich of Würtemberg. “Ulric de Wurtemberg aux gouverneurs de Besançon.” Trans. Anémond de Coct. Manuscript. 52. Zwingli, Ulrich. De canone missae. Zurich, 1523. 53. Zwingli, Ulrich. “Apologiam [for his treatise on the Mass].” 54. Zwingli, Ulrich. Pastor, quo docetur quibus notis veri pastores a falsis discerni possint, et quid de utrisque sit sentiendum. [Zurich, 1524].

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Manuscript Sources Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal MS 5096, Initiatoire instruction en la religion chrestienne: IA. Initiatoire Instruction en la religion chrestienne pour les enffans, 2r–13v IB. Perfectoire instruction pour les enffans apres qu’ilz seront devenuz plus agés, 14r–34r II. Le Seigneur Nre. Dieu au viiie. chap. de Isaye son prophete, nous commande, 35r–55v, (= Breve instruction pour soy confesser en verite [Alençon: Simon Du Bois, c. 1530]). Paris, Bibliothèque de la Société de l’Histoire du Protestantisme Français MS 140, “Table analytique des Registres du Parlement de Paris, 1523–1643.” MS 186/1, “Transcription des principaux fragments d’un manuscrit, contenant des lettres et des discours de Cl. Baduel. Tome deuxième. (Lettres).” MS 186/2, “Transcription des principaux fragments d’un manuscrit, contenant des lettres et des discours de Cl. Baduel. Précédée d’une lettre sur le manuscrit, et d’une table des matières contenues dans le 1er tome. (Discours et lettres).” Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Institut de France MSS 1830 and 1831, Jean de. Frotté, “Registre de la maison de Marguerite de Navarre: Livres de dépenses de Marguerite d’Angoulême, reine de Navarre.” I. (MS 1830): “Premier registre des finances, 1540–1548,” and II. (MS 1831): “Deuxième registre des finances, 1548–1549.” Nineteenth-century copies. Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine MS 2647, “Extraits du Grand Conseil, 1423–1625.” Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France Clairambault 312, 324, 334, and 335: Copies of important documents concerning political and religious affairs at court, 1525–1536. Dupuy 103, fol. 7r, Gérard Roussel to Guillaume Farel, 24 August 1524, Meaux. “Doleret plurimum. . . .” Herminjard 1, no. 117, p. 270–273. Quadroni, Farel corr., no. 17. Dupuy 153, fol. 71r, “Instruction de Henri II, roi de Navarre, à Jean Doucet, chargé de négocier avec le pape la nomination de Gérard Roussel à l’évêché d’Oloron, 1542 (sic).” Dupuy 153, “Mémoires et Titres Pour la Principauté de Béarn, de 1286 environ à 1632.” Edited: Memoire du R. Henri de Navarre pour l’expédition en cour de Rome de l’évêché d’Oloron en faveur de M. Gérard Roussel, in Menjoulet, Chronique du diocèse et du pays d’Oloron, 1869, t. II, p. 482. F.fr. 419, Gérard Roussel, Familiere exposition du simbole, de la loy, et oraison dominicale en forme de colloque [1r–174r], and Forme de visite de diocese [175r–179v].

724

bibliography

F.fr. 2751, fol. 2r, copy of Marguerite of Navarre’s date of death, 21 December 1549, as recorded in the Bible of Claude Régin, Marguerite’s master of requests and Gérard Roussel’s successor as bishop of Oloron (1555). F.fr. 4317, fol. 109r, copy of a description by the bishop of Oloron of the death of Marguerite of Navarre and the baptism of Henri IV. Attributed to Gérard Roussel in the BnF catalogue, the bishop of Oloron who wrote it was really his successor, Claude Régin de Sainte-Colonne. F.fr. 8249, “Recueil de pièces sur Lescun et Oloron. . . . Requête, enquête, déclarations, etc., relatives aux droits de la baronnie de Lescun et de la viguerie d’Oloron, XVIe–XVIIe siècles.” Latin 12556, “Acta consistoralia.” Latin 15445, fol. 41, mention of Gérard Roussel’s preaching during Easter 1533. Moreau 787, extracts from diocesan registers of Lescar and Oloron. Moreau 820, extracts from the diocesan records of Oloron. N.a.fr. 23245, “Fichier Picot.” Geneva, Bibliothèque Publique et Universitaire Latin 106, letters of Pierre Toussain, 1539–1571. Latin 111a, fol. 50r, a letter from [Gérard Roussel] to [the bishop of Meaux], published in Herminjard 1, no. 167. Latin 112, fols. 77–78, a letter by Roussel from 1525. Latin 113, letters of Michel d’Arande. The Correspondence of Marguerite of Navarre: Manuscript and Printed Sources Manuscript Sources Paris, Archives Nationales X1A 9322, nos. 75, 92, 93, 98, and 202. X1A 9324A, nos. 69, 71, 72, and 73. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France Clairambault 312, 313, 319, 323, 324, 325, 328, 333, 334, 335, 458, and 1064. Dupuy 153, 211, 273, and 569. F.fr. 2888, 2934, 2936, 2971, 2979, 2989, 2991, 3005, 3014, 3021, 3024, 3025, 3026, 3035, 3036, 3042, 3045, 3062, 3087, 3094, 3095, 3260, 3638, 3941, 4658, 4711, 5116, 5152, 8746, 15629, 15632, and 25455. N.a.fr. 1233, 1471, 3092, 7666, 7685, and 23006. Fichier Charavay 121. Rés. Z Payan 1393, in-fol. (manuscript). Coll. Verthamon, IV, “Registre secret du Parlement de Bordeaux, 13 novembre–6 septembre 1582.” Pau, Archives départementales, Pyrénées-Atlantiques E 567, E 572, E 574, E 676, and E 690. Cambridge MA, Houghton Library, Harvard University MS Fr. 258. New York, Pierpont-Morgan Library MS R-V, Rulers of France – Francis I nos. 51, 52, and 53.

bibliography

725

Printed Sources Agrippa von Nettesheim, Henricus Cornelius. Brefve declamation du sainct sacrement de mariage: compose en latin per Henricum Cornelium Agrippam et par luy traduit en vulgaire francoys. Lyon: Claude Nourry, 1526. Reprint in Eugénie Droz, Chemins de l’hérésie, vol. 2, 1–27, text 10–26. L’amateur d’autographes. Paris, 1868 Archives municipales de Bayonne. Délibérations du corps de ville: Registres gascons. Vol. 2. Bayonne, 1898. Baduel, Claude. Oratio funebris in funere Floretae Sarrasiae habita. Lyon: Étienne Dolet, 1542. Bandello, Matteo. La quarta parte de le novelle. Ed. Delmo Maestri. Alessandria: Ed. dell’Orso, 1996. ——. L’Ecuba, tragedia di Euripide. Ed. Guglielmo Manzi. Rome, 1813. Barral, Vincent [Vincenzio Barrali]. Chronologia sanctorum et aliorum virorum illustrium, ac abbatum sacrae insulæ Lerinensis. Lyon: Petri Rigaud, 1613. Barril, Jean. A tres illustre et puissante princesse et dame, Marguerite de France, royne de Navarre, duchesse d’Alençon, et de Berry. Toulouse: Eustache Mareschal, [1535]. Becker, Philippe-August. “Les idées religieuses de Guillaume Briçonnet, évêque de Meaux,” Revue de théologie et de questions religieuses 9 (1900): 318–358, 377–416. ——. “Marguerite de Navarre, duchesse d’Alençon, et G. Briçonnet, évêque de Meaux, d’après leur correspondance manuscrite (1521–1524), suivi d’un tableau chronologique.” BSHPF (1900) 393–477, 661–687. Benoît, F. La légation du cardinal Sadolet auprès de François Ier en 1542. Monaco / Paris, 1928. Bers, Günter Ernst. Die Allianz Frankreich–Kleve während des Geldrischen Krieges (Jühlichische Fehde), 1539–1543: Urkunden und Korrespondenzen. Cologne: J. Gouder, 1969. Boccaccio, Giovanni. Le Decameron. Trans. Antoine Du Moulin [Maçon]. Lyon: Guillaume Rouillé, 1551. Bonnet, Jules. “Marguerite d’Angoulême, reine de Navarre, et Renée de France (1535–36).” BSHPF 37 (1888): 113–123. ——. “Marguerite de Valois, reine de Navarre.” Revue chrétienne 8 (1861): 179–215; 252–289; 320–366. ——. “Quatre lettres inédites de Marguerite de Navarre, sœur de François Ier à Renée de France, duchesse de Ferrare, 1529–1536.” BSHPF 15 (1866): 125–131. Bourdon, Pierre. “Nouvelles recherches sur Lodovico Canossa, évêché de Bayeux, 1516–1531.” Bulletin historique et philologique du Comité des travaux historiques et scientifiques (1911): 260–301. Bourrilly, V.-L. and Nathaniel Weiss. “Jean du Bellay, les protestants et la Sorbonne (1529–1525).” BSHPF 52 (1903): 193–231; 53 (1904): 97–143. Bourrilly, V.-L. and P. de Vaissière. Ambassades en Angleterre de J. du Bellay, la première ambassade (septembre 1527–février 1529): Correspondance diplomatique. Archives de l’histoire religieuse de la France. Paris: Alphonse Picard et fils, 1905. Bousse, A. “Une lettre inédite de Marguerite de Navarre à Charles-Quint.” Archives, bibliothèques et musées de Belgique [Archives et bibliothèques de Belgique] 23 (1952): 173–177. Bradford, William. Correspondence of the Emperor Charles V and his Ambassadors at the Courts of England and France (together with the Emperor’s Itinerary from 1519–1551). London: Richard Bentley, 1850. Brewer, John Sherren, James Gairdner, and Robert Henry Brodie, eds. Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII, preserved in the Public Record Office, the British Museum and elsewhere in England. 21 vols. London, 1862–1910; 2nd ed., 22 vols., London, 1920–1932.

726

bibliography

Briçonnet, Guillaume and Marguerite d’Angoulême. Correspondance (1521–1524). 2 vols. Ed. Christine Martineau and Michel Veissière with Henry Heller. THR 141 and 173. Geneva: Librairie Droz, 1975 and 1979. Brimont, M. le vicomte de. Le XVIe siècle et les guerres de la Réforme en Berry. 2 vols. Paris: Alphonse Picard et fils, 1905. Brodeau, Victor. Poésies. Ed. Hilary M. Tomlinson. TLF 312. Geneva: Droz, 1982. Bruyère, Pierre. “Trois lettres inédites de Marguerite de Navarre.” Société historique et archéologique de l’Orne 112 (1993): 139–151. Bucer, Martin. Correspondance de Martin Bucer. 6 vols. to date. Ed. Jean Rott et al. Martini Buceri Opera Omnia, ser. 3. Leiden: Brill, 1979–. Buisson, Albert. Le chancelier Antoine du Prat. Paris: Hachette, 1935. Calvin, John. Joannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia. Ed. G. Baum, E. Cunitz, and E. Reuss. Brunswick: C. A. Schetschke, 1863–1900. Catalogue de la belle et importante collection de lettres autographes de feu M. de Lajarriette, ancien receveur des finances de Nantes, dont la vente aura lieu le jeudi 15 novembre 1860 et les 19 jours suivants. Paris: Charavay frères, 1860. Catalogue de la collection Benjamin Fillon. Ed. Étienne Charavay. Paris: Charavay frères, 1877–1883; 1878–1891. Catalogue des actes de François Ier. 10 vols. Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1887–1908. Catherine de Médicis. Lettres. Ed. Hector Artaud de La Ferrière-Percy et al. 11 vols. Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1880–1943. Champollion-Figeac, Jean-Jacques, ed. Documents historiques inédits tirés des collections manuscrites de la Bibliothèque royale et des archives ou des bibliothèques des départements. 5 vols. Paris: Firmin Didot, 1841–1848. Champollion-Figeac, Aimé, ed. Captivité de François Ier. Collection de documents inédits sur l’histoire de France, 1st ser. Paris: Imprimerie royale, 1847. ——, ed. Les poésies du roi François Ier. Paris: Imprimerie royale, 1847. Charavay, Étienne, ed. Lettres autographes composant la collection de M. Alfred Bovet. 2 vols. Paris: Charavay frères, 1885 and 1887. Chartrier de Thouars: Documents historiques et généalogiques. Ed. M. le duc de La Trémoïlle and Paul Marchegay. Paris, 1877. Clémencet, Suzanne and Michel François, eds. Lettres reçues et envoyées par le Parlement de Paris, 1376–1596: Inventaire analytique. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1961. Clerval, Jules-Alexandre, ed. Registres des procès-verbaux de la Faculté de Théologie de Paris, de 1505 à 1523. Archives de l’histoire religieuse de la France. Paris: Lecoffre and Gabalda, 1917. Collett, Barry. A Long and Troubled Pilgrimage: The Correspondence of Marguerite d’Angoulême and Vittoria Colonna, 1540–1545. Studies in Reformed Theology and History, new ser., 6. Princeton: Princeton Theological Seminary, 2000. Colonna, Vittoria. Carteggio di Vittoria Colonna marchesa di Pescara. Ed. Ermanno Ferrero and Giuseppe Müller. Turin: Ermanno Loescher, 1889. Concasty, Marie-Louise, ed. Commentaires de la Faculté de médecine de l’Université de Paris (1516–1560). Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1964. Condé, Louis I, prince of. Mémoires de Condé. Ed. Denis-François Secouss. 6 vols. London: C. Du Bosc et G. Darres, 1743. Cornuau. “Autographes précieux provenant de la collection de Madame Whitney-Hoff.” Auction catalogue, Hôtel Drouot, 31 May 1949. Dartigue, Ch. “Les séjours de Marguerite de Navarre à Bordeaux.” Annales du Midi 62 (1950): 278–285. Des Périers, Bonaventure. Le Cymbalum mundi. Ed. Yves Delègue. Paris: Honoré Champion, 1995. Des Périers, Bonaventure, “Maistre Sarcomoros.” Pronostication des pronostications. [Lyon]: Jean Morin, 1537.

bibliography

727

Desjardins, Abel, ed. Négociations diplomatiques de la France avec la Toscane. 6 vols. Paris: Imprimerie Impériale, 1861. Diane de Poitiers. Lettres inédites: publiées d’après les manuscrits de la Bibliothèque impériale avec une introduction et des notes. Ed. Georges Guiffrey. Paris, 1866. Reprint, Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1970. Duprat, Antoine. Glanes et regains récoltés dans les archives de maison Du Prat. Ed. The Marquis Du Prat. Versailles: Beau jeune, 1865. Erasmus, Desiderius. Opus epistolarum Des. Erasmi Roterodami. 12 vols. Ed. P. S. Allen et al. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1906–1958. Farge, James K., ed. Registre des conclusions de la Faculté de théologie de l’Université de Paris: Tome II, du 26 novembre 1533 au 1er mars 1550. Paris: Klincksieck, 1994. ——, ed. Registre des procès-verbaux de la Faculté de théologie de l’Université de Paris, de janvier 1524 à novembre 1533. Paris: Aux Amateurs de Livres, 1990. Fontana, Bartolomeo. “Nuovi documenti Vaticani intorno a Vittoria Colonna.” Archivio della reale società romana di storia patria 10 (1887): 595–628. ——, ed. Renata di Francia, duchessa di Ferrara, sui documenti dell’archivio Estense, del Mediceo, del Gonzaga e dell’archivio secreto Vaticano. 3 vols. Rome: Forzani, 1889–1899. Fraikin, J. Nonciatures de Clément VII. 2 vols. Paris: Firmin Didot et Cie and J. Gabalda, 1906 and 1926. Frank, Félix. “Dernier voyage de la reine de Navarre, Marguerite d’Angoulême, sœur de François Ier, avec sa fille Jeanne d’Albret aux bains de Cauterets (1549). Trois épîtres en vers inconnues des historiens de ces deux princesses et des éditeurs de leurs œuvres. Étude critique et historique.” Revue des Pyrénées 8 (1896): 591–624; 9 (1897): 32–76. Frémy, Édouard. “Les poésies inédites de Catherine de Médicis.” Le correspondant 130 (1883): 858–889, 1094–1117; 131 (1884): 507–534, 694–709. Offprint, Paris, Techener, 1884. Gaucheron, Roger, ed. Lettres, autographes et manuscrits de la collection Henri de Rothschild. Vol 1. Mâcon: Imprimerie Protat frères; Paris: Francisque Le François, 1924. Gaufrès, Mattieu-Jules. Claude Baduel et la réforme des études en France au XVIe siècle. Paris: Hachette, 1880. Gaullieur, Ernest. Histoire de la Réformation à Bordeaux et dans le ressort du Parlement de Guyenne. Vol. 1. Paris: Honoré Champion, 1884. Génin, F., ed. Lettres de Marguerite d’Angoulême, sœur de François I, reine de Navarre. Paris: Renouard, 1841. Reprint, New York: Johnson Reprint Co., 1965. ——, ed. Nouvelles lettres de la reine de Navarre, adressées au roi François Ier, son frère. Paris: Renouard, 1942; New York: Johnson Reprint Co., 1965. Gigon, Stephan C. La révolte de la gabelle en Guyenne 1548–1549. Paris: Honoré Champion, 1906. Guise, Charles de, cardinal of Lorraine. Lettres du Cardinal Charles de Lorraine (1525–1574). Ed. Daniel Cuisiat. Geneva: Droz, 1998. Hauvette, Henri. “Une nouvelle lettre de Marguerite de Navarre en italien.” Bulletin italien 2 (1902) 217–218. Offprint, Bordeaux: Feret et fils, n.d. ——. Un exilé florentin à la cour de France au XVIe siècle: Luigi Alamanni (1495–1556). Paris: Hachette, 1903. Herminjard, A.-L., ed. Correspondance des réformateurs dans les pays de langue française. 9 vols. Geneva: H. Georg / Paris: Michel Levy, 1866–1897. Reprint, Nieuwkoop: B. de Graaf, 1965. Jacqueton, Gilbert. La politique extérieure de L. de Savoie: relations diplomatiques de France et de l’Angleterre pendant la captivité de François Ier (1525–1526). Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études, Sciences philologique et historiques 88. Paris: E. Bouillon, 1892.

728

bibliography

Jourda, Pierre. Répertoire analytique et chronologique de la correspondance de Marguerite d’Angoulême, duchesse d’Alençon, reine de Navarre (1492–1549). Paris: Librairie Ancienne Honoré Champion, 1930. Reprint, Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1973. ——. “Marguerite de Navarre: Épîtres et comédie inédites.” Revue du seizième siècle 13 (1926), 177–204. Offprint, Paris: Honoré Champion, 1927. ——. “Marguerite de Navarre. Lettres inédits.” Revue du seizième siècle 15 (1928), 100–133. Offprint, Paris: Honoré Champion, 1928. Kaulek, Jean, ed. Correspondance politique de Ms. de Castillon et de Marillac, ambassadeurs de France en Angleterre, 1537–1542. Paris, 1885. La Ferrière-Percy, Hector Artaud, comte de. Marguerite d’Angoulême, sœur de François Ier: Son livre de dépenses (1540–1549); Étude sur ses dernières années. Paris: Aubry, 1862. ——. Le XVIe siècle et les Valois d’après les documents inédits du British Museum et du Record Office. Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1879. Labande, Léon-Honoré, ed. Correspondance de J. de Matignon (1516–1548). Monaco: Imprimerie de Monaco, 1914. Laurent, Eugène. Histoire de Marguerite de Lorraine. Argentan: Imprimerie de Barbier, 1854. Le Glay, André, ed. Négociations diplomatiques entre la France et l’Autriche durant les trente premières années du XVIe siècle. 2 vols. Collection de documents inédits sur l’histoire de France, 1st ser. Paris: Imprimerie royale, 1845. Lestocquoy, J, ed. Correspondance des nonces en France Carpi et Ferrerio, 1535–1540. Acta nuntiaturae gallicae 1. Rome: Presses de l’Université Grégorienne; Paris: Éditions E. de Boccard, 1961. ——, ed. Correspondance des nonces en France: Capodiferro, Dandino et Guidiccione, 1541–1546. Acta nuntiaturae gallicae 3. Rome: Presses de l’Université Grégorienne; Paris: Editions E. de Boccard, 1963. ——, ed. Correspondance des nonces en France: Dandino, Della Torre et Trivultio, 1546–1551, avec des Documents relatifs à la rupture des relations diplomatiques 1551–1552. Acta nuntiaturae gallicae 6. Rome: Presses de l’Université Grégorienne; Paris: Éditions E. de Boccard, 1966. Lettere volgari di diversi nobilissimi huomini et eccellentissimi ingegni, scritte in diverse materie con la giunta del terzo libro nuovamente ristampate et in più luoghi corrette. Venice: Aldus, [1543]; 2nd ed. 1575. Livet, Charles. “Rapport sur les documents relatifs à l’histoire de France conservés aux archives de La Torre do Tombo, à Lisbonne.” In Archives des missions étrangères, 2nd ser., 5 (1868): 63–137. López de Meneses, Amada. “André Mélanchton et le Parlement de Bordeaux.” Revue historique de Bordeaux et du département de la Gironde 33 (1940): 41–51. ——. “Marguerite de Navarre et le Parlement de Bordeaux (1537–1544).” Revue historique de Bordeaux et du département de la Gironde 34 (1941): 36–42. ——. “Nuevos Datos sobre la Correspondencia de Margarita de Angulema.” Bulletin Hispanique 37 (1935): 5–9. López de Meneses, Amada [pseudonym Madelena Pomés Sáez]. “Una carta inédita de Margarita de Angulema.” Príncipe de Viana 7 (1946): 541–542. ——. “Margurita de Angulema y Enrique de Labrit en Prató.” N.p., [1946]. Luther, Martin. D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe, Briefwechsel, 18 vols. Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1930–1985. Marchegay, Paul and H. Imbert, eds. Lettres missives originales du seizième siècle . . . tirées des archives du duc de la Tremoïlle. Niort: L. Clouzot, 1881. Marguerite de Navarre. Epistre envoyee au roy par sa sœur unique, la royne de Navarre. Rouen: Jean l‘Homme, 1543. ——. Heptaméron des nouvelles de très illustre princesse Marguerite d’Angoulême, reine de Navarre. Ed. A. Le Roux de Lincy and Anatole de Montaiglon. 4 vols. Paris: A. Eudes, 1880.

bibliography

729

——. Les marguerites de la Marguerite des princesses. Texte de l’édition de 1547 publié avec introduction, notes et glossaire. Ed. Félix Frank. 4 vols. Cabinet du bibliophile 16. Paris: Libraire des Bibliophiles, 1873. Reprint in one volume, Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1970. Mariotte, Jean-Yves. “Une correspondance entre Marguerite de Navarre et le landgrave de Hesse (1541).” Hessisches Jahrbuch für Landesgeschichte 14 (1964): 110–122. Martelli, N. Il primo libro delle lettere di N. Martelli. Florence, 1546. Matter, M. “Lettre de Marguerite de Valois.” In Lettres et pièces rares ou inédites. Paris: Amyot, 1846. Ménard, Léon. Histoire de la ville de Nîmes. 7 vols. Paris: H. D. Chaubert, 1753. Reprints, Nîmes: Imprimerie de Clavel-Ballivet, 1873–1875; Marseille: Laffitte, 1975; and Nîmes: Lacour, 1988–1989. Mentz, Georg. Johann-Friedrich der Großmütige. 3 vols. Beitrage zur neuren Geschichte Thüringens 1. Jena: Fischer, 1903–1908. Métivier, Jean de. Chronique du Parlement de Bordeaux. Ed. Arthur de Brezetz and Jules Delpit. 2 vols. Publications de la Société des Bibliophiles de Guyenne. Bordeaux: Société des Bibliophiles, 1886–1887. ——. “Trois lettres de Marguerite, reine de Navarre, sœur de François Ier, au conseillers de Lectoure.” Documents historiques inédits 4 (1848): 406–408. Miglioranzi, Corrinna. Lodovico di Canossa, ricerche storiche con documenti inediti. Città del Castello: S. Lapi, 1907. Nolhac, Pierre de. Lettres de Marguerite de Navarre au Pape Paul III. Versailles: Cerf et fils, 1887. Pagano, Sergio M. and Concetta Ranieri, eds. Nuovi documenti su Vittoria Colonna e Reginald Pole. Vatican City: Archivio Vaticano, 1989. Paris, Paulin and Gaston Paris. Études sur François Ier, roi de France, sur sa vie privée et son règne. 2 vols. Paris: Léon Techener, 1885. Pellicier, Guillaume. Correspondance politique de Guillaume Pellicier, ambassadeur de France à Venise (1540–1542). 2 vols. Ed. Alexandre Tausserat-Radel. Paris, 1899. Peter, Rodolphe. “Strasbourg et la Réforme française vers 1525.” In Strasbourg au cœur religieux du XVIe siècle: Hommage à Lucien Febvre; Actes du colloque international de Strasbourg (25–29 mai 1975), ed. Georges Livet and Francis Rapp, 269–283. Strasbourg: Istra, 1977. Puech, Albert. La Renaissance et la Réforme à Nîmes: d’après des documents originaux inédits. Nîmes: Gervais-Bedot, 1893. Pimodan, Gabriel de [Raoul Fortunat]. La mère des Guises, Antoinette de Bourbon, 1494–1583. Paris: Honoré Champion, 1889. Reprint, Paris: Édouard Champion, 1925. Politische Correspondenz der Stadt Strassburg im Zeitalter der Reformation. Ed. Hans Vrick et al. 6 vols. Urkunden und Akten der Stadt Strassburg. Strasbourg: Trübner, 1882–1898. Reprint, Heidelberg: Winters, 1928–1933. Pollet, J. V. Martin Bucer: études sur la correspondance avec de nombreux textes inédits. 2 vols. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1958. Précieux autographes composant la collection du Président Robert Schuman, deuxième partie. Vente Hôtel Drouot, 24–25 juin 1965. Paris, 1965. Puchesse, G. Baguenault de. Jean de Morvilliers. Paris: Didier, 1870. Reprint, Geneva: Slatkine / Megarotis, 1977. Puech, Albert. La Renaissance et la Réforme à Nîmes: d’après des documents originaux inédits. Nîmes: Gervais-Bedot, 1893. Rabelais, François. Le tiers livre. Ed. M. A. Screech. Geneva: Droz, 1995. Raemond, Florimond de. L’histoire de la naissance, progrez, et decadence de l’hérésie de ce siècle, divisee en huict livres. Rouen J. Berthelin, 1623 [1st ed., Paris: Charles Chastellain, 1605]. Raynal, Louis-Hector Chandru de. Histoire de Berry depuis les temps les plus anciens jusqu’en 1789. 3 vols. [numbered 2–4]. Bourges: Vermeil, 1844–1847.

730

bibliography

Richard, Abbé. “Le Pape Paul III et Jeanne d’Albret.” Annales de Saint-Louis des Français (1904): 197–211. Ritter, Raymond, ed. Lettres de Marguerite de Valois-Angoulême. Paris: Édouard Champion; Toulouse: Édouard Privat, 1927. Ruble, Alphonse de. Antoine de Bourbon et Jeanne d’Albret (Suite du mariage de Jeanne d’Albret). 4 vols. Paris: Adolphe Labitte, 1881–1886. ——. Le mariage de J. d’Albret. Paris: Adolphe Labitte, 1877. Ruscelli, Girolamo, ed. Lettere di principi le quali o si scrivono da principi, o a principi, o ragionano di principi. 3 vols. Venice: F. Ziletti, 1581. Samaran, Charles and H. Patry. “Marguerite de Navarre et le Pape Paul III.” Bibliothèque de l’école des chartes 68 (1907): 320–338. Sanuto [Sanudo], Marino. Diari. Ed. Guglielmo Berchet. 58 vols. Venice, 1879–1903. Saulnier, V.-L. “La correspondance de Marguerite de Navarre: Complément au répertoire.” BHR 33 (1971): 571–604. ——. “Une épitre inconnue de François Ier à Marguerite de Navarre.” Bulletin du bibliophile et du bibliothécaire 11th ser. (1954): 176–186. ——. “Intrigues pour un évêché: Marguerite de Navarre et le siège de Sarlat (1530).” Kwartalnik Neofilologiczny (1976): 208–216. ——. “Marguerite de Navarre aux temps de Briçonnet: Étude de la correspondance générale (1521–1522).” BHR 39 (1977): 437–478; 40 (1978): 7–47 and 193–237. ——. “Marguerite de Navarre en ses derniers temps: Sur des lettres de 1547–1549.” BHR 36 (1974): 533–572. ——. “Marguerite de Navarre et le Baron de Jarnac: d’après une correspondance inédite de la reine.” In De Jean Lemaire de Belges à Jean Giraudoux: Mélanges d’histoire et de critique littéraire offerts à Pierre Jourda, 93–109. Paris: Nizet, 1970. ——. “Marguerite de Navarre, Catherine de Médicis et les Psaumes de Marot: Autour de la lettre dite de Villemadon,” and appendix, “Addenda à la correspondance de Marguerite de Navarre.” BHR 37 (1975): 349–376. ——. “Marguerite de Navarre, Vittoria Colonna et quelques autres amis italiens de 1540.” In Mélanges à la mémoire de Franco Simone: France et Italie dans la culture européenne: I. Moyen Age et Renaissance, 281–295. Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1980. ——. “Marguerite loin du roi blessé: Sur la correspondance de Marguerite d’Angoulême aux lendemains de Pavie.” In Missions de démarches de la critique: Mélanges offerts au Professeur J. A. Vier. Paris: Klincksieck, 1973. ——. “Recherches sur la correspondance de Marguerite de Navarre.” BHR 34 (1972): 283–336. ——. “Sur des lettres de Marguerite d’Angoulême aux temps d’Espagne.” Travaux de linguistique et de littérature 13 (1975): 31–45. ——. “Troubles au couvent de Tarascon (Marguerite de Navarre, Guillaume du Maine, Claude de Bectoz et Denys Faucher).” In French Renaissance Studies in Honor of Isidore Silver, ed. Frieda S. Brown, 309–317. Special issue of the Kentucky Romance Quarterly 21 (1974), Supplement 2. Solente, Suzanne. “Une lettre inédite de Marguerite de Valois.” Brussels, 1947. Offprint of Revue belge de philologie et d’histoire 25, nos. 3 and 4. Spont, Alfred. Semblançay (?–1527): la bourgeoisie financière au début du XVIe siècle. Paris: Hachette, 1895. Telle, E. V. “Un document sur le mécénat de Marguerite d’Angoulême, reine de Navarre.” BHR 34 (1972): 279–281. Thomas, Danièle, ed. Documents officiels et correspondances (du 12 juillet, 1508 au 26 mars 1789). Société des Amis du Château de Pau, Collection “Documents inédits” 1. Pau: Société des Amis du Château de Pau, 1996. ——, ed. Inventaires mobiliers et pièces annexes: Château de Pau—Château de Nérac (XVIe–XVIIe siècles). Société des Amis du Château de Pau: Collection “Documents inédits” 2. Pau: Société des Amis du Château de Pau, 1996.

bibliography

731

Tournon, François de. Correspondance du Cardinal François de Tournon (1521–1562). Ed. Michel François. Paris: Honoré Champion, 1946. Trois cents autographes de la donation de Henri de Rothschild. Catalogue de l’exposition (1933). Paris: éditions de la bibliothèque nationale de France, 1933. Vindry, Fleury. Les parlementaires français au XVIe siècle. 2 vols. Paris: Champion, 1909–1912. Weiss, Nathaniel. “L’évêque Guillaume Briçonnet, François I et sa sœur Marguerite. Deux lettres inédites de février 1522.” BSHPF 37 (1888): 191–203. Printed Primary Sources and Secondary Literature Reference Tools Altensteig, Johannes. Lexicon theologicum complectens vocabulorum descriptiones, diffinitiones et interpretationes [Vocabularius theologie]. Antwerp: 1576 [1st ed., 1517]. Artonne, André, Louis Suizard and Odette Pontal. Répertoire des statuts synodaux des diocèses de l’ancienne France du XIIIe à la fin du XVIIIe siècle. Documents, Études et Répertoires publiés par l’Institut de Recherche et d’Histoire des Textes 8. Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1969. Bell, Gary M. A Handlist of British Diplomatic Representatives, 1509–1688. London: Offices of the Royal Historical Society, 1990. Contemporaries of Erasmus: A Biographical Register of the Renaissance and Reformation. 3 vols. Ed. Peter G. Bietenholz. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1987. Cottineau, L. H. Répertoire topo-bibliographique des abbayes et prieurés. 3 vols. Mâcon: Portât, 1935, 1939, and 1970. Dictionnaire d’histoire et géographie ecclésiastiques. 27 vols. to date. Ed. A. Baudrillart et seq. Paris: Letouzey, 1912–. Eubel, Conrad et al., eds. Hierarchia catholica medii aevi. 7 vols. Munster: Libraria Regensbergiana, 1918–1936. Farge, James K. Biographical Register of Paris Doctors of Theology, 1500–1536. Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies: Subsidia Mediaevalia 10. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1980. Gallia Christiana in provincias ecclesiasticas distributa, qua series et historia archiepiscoporum, episcoporum et abbatum Franciæ vicinarumque, ditionum, ab origine eccclesiarum ad nostra tempora deducitur. 16 vols. Ed. Denis de Sainte-Marthe. Paris: J. Coignard, 1715–1865. Gams, Boniface. Series episcoporum ecclesiae catholicae. Regensburg, 1873. Gougenheim, Georges. Grammaire de la langue française du XVIe siècle. Paris: Picard, 1974. Greimas, Algirdas, Julien Keane, and Teresa Mary Keane. Dictionnaire du moyen français: la Renaissance. Paris: Larousse, 1992. Haag, Eugène and Émile. La France protestante. 10 vols. Paris: Bureaux de la Publication Cherbuliez, 1846–1859; 2nd ed. Henri-Léonard Bordier. 6 vols. [A–Gas] (Paris: Fischbacher, 1877–1888). Reprint, Genève: Slatkine Reprints, 1970. Huguet, Edmont. Dictionnaire de la langue française du seizième siècle. Paris: Champion; Paris: Didier, 1925–1967. Littré, P.-Émile. Dictionnaire de la langue française. Paris-London-Leipzig, 1863. Reprint, Chicago, 1982. Mirot, Léon and Albert. Manuel de géographie historique de la France. 2 vols. Paris: Picard, 1947 and 1550. Reprint, 2 volumes in one 1980. Moréri, Louis, Abbé Goujet, and M. Drouet. Le grand dictionnaire historique, ou le mélange curieux de l’histoire sacrée et profane. 2nd ed. Paris, 1759; Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1995.

732

bibliography

The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation. Ed. Hans J. Hillerbrand. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. Répertoire des visites pastorales de la France. 4 vols. Première série: Anciens Diocèses (Jusqu’en 1790). Ed. Gabriel Le Bras et al. Paris: Éditions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1977–1985. Bibliographies Aland, Kurt with Ernst Otto Reichert and Gerhard Jordan. Hilfsbuch zum Lutherstudium. 3rd rev. ed. Witten: Luther-Verlag, 1970. Babelon, Jean. La bibliothèque de Fernand Colomb. Revue des bibliothèques, supplément 10. Paris: Champion, 1913. Baudrier, Henri. Bibliographie lyonnaise. 12 vols. Lyon and Paris: Société des amis de la bibliothèque, 1895–1921. Benzing, Josef. Bibliographie strasbourgeoise: Bibliographie des ouvrages imprimés à Strasbourg au XVIe siècle. Vol. 1. Répertoire bibliographique des livres imprimés en France au seizième siècle, 148. Bibliotheca Bibliographica Aureliana 80. BadenBaden: Valentin Koerner, 1981. Benzing, Josef et al. Lutherbibliographie: Verzeichnis der gedruckten Schriften Martin Luthers bis zu dessen Tod. 3 vols. Bibliotheca Bibliographica Aureliana, 10, 16, and 19. Baden-Baden: Heitz, 1965–66. Bodenmann, Reinhard. “Bibliotheca Lambertiana.” In Pour retrouver François Lambert: Biobibliographie et études, ed. Pierre Fraenkel, 9–213. Bibliotheca Bibliographica Aureliana 108. Baden-Baden and Bouxwiller: Éditions Valentin Koerner, 1987. Bujanda, J. M. de et al. Thesaurus de la littérature interdite au XVIe siècle: Auteurs, ouvrages, éditions avec addenda et corrigenda. Index des Livres Interdits, vol. 10. Sherbrooke, Canada: Centre d’Études de la Renaissance / Geneva: Droz, 1996. Bujanda, J. M. de, Francis M. Higman, and James K. Farge. Index de l’Université de Paris: 1544, 1545, 1547, 1549, 1551, 1556. Index des Livres Interdits, vol. 1. Sherbrooke, Canada: Centre d’Études de la Renaissance / Geneva: Droz, 1985. Chambers, Betty T. Bibliography of French Bibles: Fifteenth- and Sixteenth-Century French-Language Editions of the Scriptures. THR 197. Geneva: Droz, 1983. Chaix, Paul, Alain Dufour, and Gustave Moeckli. Les livres imprimés à Genève de 1550 à 1600. 2nd ed. by Gustave Moeckli. THR 86. Geneva: Droz, 1966. Cioranesco, Alexandre with V.-L. Saulnier. Bibliographie de la littérature française du seizième siècle. Paris: C. Klincksieck, 1959; Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1975. Clive, H. P. Clément Marot: an Annotated Bibliography. London: Grant and Cutler, 1983. ——. Marguerite de Navarre: an Annotated Bibliography. London: Grant and Cutler, 1983. Geisenhof, Georg. Bibliographie der Druckschriften des D. Joh. Bugenhagen. Bibliotheca Bugenhagiana, vol. 1. Leipzig: M. Heinsius Nachfolger, 1908. Gilmont, Jean-François et al., eds. “Bibliotheca gebennensis: Les livres imprimés à Genève de 1535 à 1549.” Musée d’art et d’histoire de Genève, new ser., 28 (1980): 229–251. Hauser, Henri. Les sources de l’histoire de France, XVIe siècle (1494–1610). Manuels de bibliographie historique 3. Paris: Libraire Alphonse Picard et Fils, 1909. Reprint, Nendeln, Liechtenstein: Kraus Reprints, 1967. Haeghen, Ferdinand van der, Thomas James I., and R. van den Berghe. Bibliographie des œuvres de Josse Clicthove. Gand: C. Vyt, 1888. Higman, Francis M. Piety and the People: Religious Printing in French 1511–1551. St. Andrews Studies in Reformation History. Aldershot: Scolar Press, 1996. Imprimeurs et libraires parisiens du XVIe siècle. Ouvrage publié d’après les manuscrits de Philippe Renouard. Histoire Générale de Paris: Collection des documents publiée

bibliography

733

sous les auspices de l’édilité parisienne. 4 vols. to date. Paris: Service des travaux historiques de la ville de Paris, 1964–. Keen, Ralph. A Checklist of Melanchthon Imprints through 1560. Sixteenth Century Bibliography 27. St. Louis: Center for Reform and Renaissance, 1988. Lindsay, Robert O. and John Neu. French Political Pamphlets 1547–1648: A Catalog of Major Collections in American Libraries. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1969. Longeon, Claude. Bibliographie des œuvres d’Étienne Dolet, écrivain, éditeur et imprimeur. THR 174. Geneva: Droz, 1980. Mayer, C. A. Bibliographie des éditions de Clément Marot publiées au XVIe siècle. 2nd ed. Paris: Nizet, 1975. 1st ed., Geneva: Droz, 1954. ——. Bibliographie des Œuvres de Clément Marot: I. Manuscrits. Geneva: Droz, 1954. Moreau, Brigitte et al. Inventaire chronologique des éditions parisiennes du XVIe siècle (d’après les manuscrits de Philippe Renouard). 5 vols. to date covering 1500–1540. Paris: Service des travaux historiques de la ville de Paris, 1972–. Mortimer, Ruth. Harvard College Library, Department of Printing and Graphic Arts: Catalogue of Books and Manuscripts; Part I: French 16th-century Books. 2 vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1964. Muller, Jean. Bibliographie strasbourgeoise: Bibliographie des ouvrages imprimés à Strasbourg au XVIe siècle. Vols. 2 and 3. Répertoire bibliographique des livres imprimés en France au seizième siècle, 148. Bibliotheca Bibliographica Aureliana 90 and 105. Baden-Baden: Valentin Koerner, 1985 and 1986. See Benzing for vol. 1. Pettegree, Andrew, Malcolm Walsby, and Alexander Wilkinson. French Vernacular Books: Books published in the French Language before 1601 / Livres vernaculaires français: Livres imprimés en français avant 1601. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Répertoire bibliographique des livres imprimés en France au seizième siècle. Bibliotheca Bibliographica Aureliana. 30 vols. Baden-Baden: Éditions Valentin Koerner, 1968–1980. Printed Primary Sources Amerbach, Basilius et al. Die Amerbachkorrespondenz. Ed. Alfred Hartmann et al. 7 vols. Basel: Verlag der Universitätsbibliothek, 1942–1967. Backus, Irena and Claire Chimelli, eds. “La vraie piété:” divers traités de Jean Calvin et confession de foi de Guillaume Farel. Histoire et Société 12. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1986. Barrillon, Jean de. Journal de Jean de Barrillon: secrétaire du Chancelier Duprat 1515– 1521. 2 vols. Ed. Pierre de Vaissière. Paris: Renouard, 1897–1899. Baum, J.-G., ed. Procès Baudichon de la Maison Neuve, accusé d’hérésie à Lyon (1534). Geneva: J.-G. Fick, 1873. Berquin, Louis de? La farce des théologastres. Ed. Claude Longeon. TLF 366. Geneva: Droz, 1989. Besson, Ed. “Jean Lecomte de la Croix: un réformateur peu connu.” Berner Taschenbuch 26 (1877): 139–168. Bèze, Théodore de (attributed to). Histoire ecclésiastique des églises réformées au royaume de France. 3 vols. Ed. G. Baum and Ed. Cunitz. Paris: Librairie Fischbacher, 1883–1889. Reprint, Nieuwkoop: B. de Graaf, 1974. ——. Les vrais portraits de homes illustres en piété et doctrine: Avec les 30 portraits supplémentaires de l’édition de 1673. Intro. Alain Dufour. Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1986. Bindseil, Heinrich Ernst, ed. Philippi Melanchthonis epistolae, iudicia, consilia, testimonia aliorumque ad eum epistolae quae in corpore reformatorum disiderantur. Halle: G. Schwetschke, 1874. Reprint with forward by Robert Stupperich, Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag, 1975.

734

bibliography

Blarer, Ambrosius and Thomas. Briefwechsel der Brüder Ambrosius und Thomas Blaurer, 1509–1548. Ed. Badischen Historischen Kommission, dir. Traugott Schieß. 2 vols. Freiburg im Breisgau: Friedrich Ernst Fehsenfeld, 1908 and 1910. Bordier, Henri-Léonard, ed. Le chansonnier huguenot du XVIe siècle. 2 vols. Paris: Tross, 1870. Reprint, Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1969. Bouchet, Jean. Les annales d’Aquitaine jusques en l’an 1537. Paris, Denis Janot, 1537. Bourbon, Nicolas. Les bagatelles de Nicolas Bourbon. Ed. V.-L. Saulnier. Paris: Jacques Haumont, 1945. Bourdigné, Jean de. Hystoire agrégative des annalles et cronicques d’Anjou [et du Maine] . . . recueillies par Jehan de Bourdigné, . . . reveues et additionees par le Viateur. Paris: Antoine Couteau and Galliot du Pré; Angers: Clément Alexandre and Charles de Bougne. 1530. Bradford, W., ed. Correspondence of the Emperor Charles V and his Ambassadors at the Courts of England and France. London, 1850. Brantôme, Pierre de Bourdeilles, abbé de. Œuvres complètes. Ed. L. Lalanne. 11 vols. Paris, 1864–1882. Brewer, John Sherren, James Gairdner, and Robert Henry Brodie, eds. Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII, preserved in the Public Record Office, the British Museum and elsewhere in England. 21 vols. London, 1862–1910; 2nd ed., 22 vols., London, 1920–1932. Brodeau, Victor. Poésies. Ed. Hilary M. Tomlinson. TLF 312. Geneva: Droz, 1982. Buche, Joseph. “Lettres inédites latine de Jean de Boyssoné et de ses amis.” Revue des langues romanes 37 (1893–1894): 323–329; 38 (1895): 176–190, 269–278; 39 (1896): 71–86, 138–143, 355–372; 40 (1897): 177–197. Calvin, John. Calvini opera selecta. Ed. P. Barth and W. Niesel. 2nd ed. 5 vols. Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1926–1952. ——. Défense de Guillaume Farel et de ses collègues contre les calomnies du théologastre Pierre Caroli par Nicolas Des Gallars (Pro G. Farello et collegis eius adversus Petri Caroli theologastri calumnias defensio Nicolai Galasii). Ed. Jean-François Gounelle. Études d’Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses 73. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1994. ——. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1536 edition. Trans. Ford Lewis Battles. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989 [1975]. ——. Institution de la Religion Chrétienne. 5 vols. Ed. Jean-Daniel Benoît. Bibliothèque des textes philosophiques. Paris: J. Vrin, 1957–1963. ——. Ioannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia. Ed. G. Baum, E. Cunitz, and E. Reuss. Braunschweig: C. A. Schetschke, 1863–1900. ——. Lettres de Jean Calvin. Ed. Jules Bonnet. 2 vols. Paris: Meyrueis, 1854. ——. Œuvres choisies. Ed. Olivier Millet. Collection Folio Classique 2701. Paris: Gallimard, 1995. ——. Œuvres de Jean Calvin III. Sermons: sur la nativité, la passion, la résurrection et le dernier avènement de Notre-Seigneur Jesus-Christ. Ed. Albert-Marie Schmidt. Paris: Société commerciale d’Édition et de Librairie; Geneva: Labor, 1936. ——. Plaidoyers pour le Comte Guillaume de Fürstenberg. Ed. Rodolphe Peter. Études d’Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses 72. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1994. ——. Des scandales: Édition critique. Ed. Olivier Fatio. TLF 323. Geneva: Droz, 1984. Capito, Wolfgang. Correspondance de Wolfgang Capiton (1478–1541): Analyse et index (d’après le Thesaurus Baumianus et autres sources). Ed. Olivier Millet. Publications de la Bibliothèque Nationale et Universitaire de Strasbourg VIII. Strasbourg: Bibliothèque de la Bibliothèque nationale et universitaire, 1982. Catalogue des actes de François Ier. 10 vols. Académie des Sciences morales et politiques: Collection des ordonnances des Rois de France. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1887–1910.

bibliography

735

Champollion-Figeac, Aimé, ed. Captivité de François Ier. Collection de documents inédits sur l’Histoire de France, 1st ser. Paris: Imprimerie Royale, 1847. ——, ed. Poésies du roi François Ier, de Louise de Savoie, duchesse d’Angoulême, de Marguerite, reine de Navarre, et correspondance intime du Roi avec Diane de Poitiers et plusieurs autres Dames de la cour. Paris: Imprimerie Royale, 1847. Charles V. Correspondenz des Kaisers Karl V. Ed. Karl Lanz. 3 vols. Leipzig, 1844– 1846. Chassaing, Augustin, ed. Le livre de Podio ou chroniques d’Étienne Médicis, bourgeois du Puy. Le Puy-en-Lay: M.-P. Marchessov, 1874. “Une chronique de l’établissement de la Réforme à Saint-Seurin-d’Uzet et Saintonge: le registre de baptêmes de Jean Frèrejean (1541–1564).” BSHPF 50 (1901): 135–157. Colonna, Vittoria. Carteggio di Vittoria Colonna marchesa di Pescara. Ed. Ermanno Ferrero and Giuseppe Müller. Turin: Ermanno Loescher, 1889 and 1892. Compendium Universitatis Parisiensis. Trans. Robert B. Burke. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1928. Coyecque, Ernest, ed. Recueil d’actes notariés relatifs à l’histoire de Paris et de ses environs au XVIe siècle. 2 vols. Paris, 1905–1923. Crespin, Jean. Histoire des martyrs persecutéz et mis à morts pour la vérité de l’évangile, depuis le temps des apostres jusques à présent (1619). Ed. Daniel Benoît. 3 vols. Toulouse, 1885–1889. Cronique du roy Françoys premier de ce nom. Ed. Georges Guiffrey. Paris: Renouard, 1860. Dentière, Marie. Epistle to Marguerite de Navarre and Preface to a Sermon by John Calvin. Ed. Mary B. McKinley. The Other Voice in Early Modern Europe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004. Desjardins, Abel, ed. Négociations diplomatiques de la France avec la Toscane. 6 vols. Paris: Imprimerie Impériale, 1861. Des Périers, Bonaventure? Cymbalum mundi. 4th edition. Ed. Peter Hampshire Nurse. Pref. M. A. Screech. Geneva: Droz, 1999. 1st edition, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1958. ——. Le cymbalum mundi. Ed. Yves Delègue. Textes de la Renaissance 4. Paris: Honoré Champion, 1995. Dolet, Étienne. Correspondance: Répertoire analytique et chronologique suivi du texte de ses lettres latines. Ed. Claude Longeon. THR 188. Geneva: Droz, 1982. ——. Préfaces françaises. Ed. Claude Longeon. TLF 272. Geneva: Droz, 1979. Driart, Pierre. Chronique parisienne de Pierre Driart chambrier de Saint Victor (1522– 1535). Ed. Fernand Bournon. In Mémoires de la Société de l’histoire de Paris et de l’Île-de-France 22 (1895): 97–178. Du Bellay, Guillaume and Martin. Mémoires de Martin et Guillaume Du Bellay. Ed. V.-L. Bourrilly and F. Vindry. 4 vols. Paris: Renouard, 1908–1919. Du Bellay, Jean. Ambassades en Angleterre de J. Du Bellay: La première ambassade (septembre 1527–février 1529): Correspondance diplomatique. Ed. V.-L. Bourrilly, and P. de Vaissière. Archives de l’histoire religieuse de la France. Paris: Alphonse Picard et fils, 1905. ——. Correspondance du Cardinal Jean Du Bellay. Ed. Rémy Scheurer. 2 vols. Paris: Klincksieck, 1969 and 1973. Duplessis d’Argentré, Charles, ed. Collectio iudiciorum de novis erroribus. 3 vols. Paris, 1728. Facsimile reprint, Brussels: Culture et Civilisation, 1963. Emmelius, Egenolphus, ed. Discursus epistolares politico-theologici de statu reipublicae Christianae degenerantis: tum de reformandis moribus et abusibus ecclesiae, cum Christianissimi Galliarum Regis Francisci I. et Cardinalis Sadoleti Epistolis. Frankfurt: E. Emmelius, 1610. Erasmus, Desiderius. Collected Works of Erasmus. Vol. 83. Controversies, Apologia ad Fabrum, Appendix de scriptis Clihovei, Dilutio, Responsio ad disputationem de

736

bibliography

divortio. Ed. Guy Bedouelle and trans. Howard Jones, Charles Fantazzi, and Ann Dalzell. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998. ——. Dilutio eorum quae Iodocus Clithoveus scripsit adversus declamationem Des. Erasmi Roterodami suasoriam matrimonii. Ed. Émile V. Telle. Paris: J. Vrin, 1968. ——. Opus epistolarum Des. Erasmi Roterodami. 12 vols. Ed. P. S. Allen et al. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1906–1958. Erasmus, Desiderius. Berquin, Louis de, trans. Briefve admonition de la manière de prier & le Symbol des Apostres de Jésuchrist [1525]. Ed. Émile V. Telle. TLF 271. Geneva: Droz, 1979. ——. La complainte de la paix (1525). Ed. Émile V. Telle. TLF 248. Geneva: Droz, 1978. ——. Declamation des louenges de mariage [1525]. Ed. Émile V. Telle. TLF 225. Geneva: Droz, 1976. Farel, Guillaume. Le Pater Noster et le Credo en françoys. Ed. Francis Higman. Geneva: Droz, 1982. ——. Le sommaire de Guillaume Farel: Réimprimé d’après l’édition de 1534. Geneva: J. G. Fick, 1867. ——. Sommaire et brefe déclaration (1525). Facsimile, Neuchâtel: Éditions “Belle Rivière,” 1980. ——. Du vrai usage de la croix de Jésus-Christ. Geneva: J. G. Fick, 1865. ——. Du vrai usage de la croix et autres traités. Ed. Edouard Urech. La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland: Éditions G. Saint-Clair, 1980. Farge, James K. Le parti conservateur au XVIe siècle: Université et Parlement de Paris à l’époque de la Renaissance et de la Réforme. Paris: Documents et inédits du Collège de France, 1992. ——, ed. Registre des procès-verbaux de la Faculté de théologie de l’Université de Paris: de janvier 1524 à novembre 1533. Paris: Aux Amateurs de Livres, 1990. ——, ed. Registre des conclusions de la Faculté de théologie de l’Université de Paris: Tome II du 26 novembre 1533 au 1er mars 1550. Paris: Klincksieck, 1994. Fontaine, Simon. Histoire catholique et ecclésiastique . . . de notre temps (1517–1540), enrichie . . . de 1546–1550. Paris and Anvers, 1558. Fraikin, J., ed. Nonciatures de France: Nonciatures de Clément VII; Vol. 1: Depuis la bataille de Pavie jusqu’au rappel d’Acciaiuoli (25 février 1525–juin 1527). Paris: Alphonse Picard et fils, 1906. ——, ed. Nonciatures de France: Nonciatures de Clément VII; Vol. 2: Supplément à la Nonciature ordinaire d’Acciaiuoli. Paris: Alphonse Picard et fils, 1926. François, Michael. “Lettre de Jacques Groslot, bailli d’Orléans au Cardinal Jean Du Bellay.” BHR 1 (1941): 193–196. Froment, Antoine. Les actes et gestes merveilleux de la cité de Genève: nouvellement convertie à l’Évangille, faictz du temps de la Réformation et comment ils l’ont receue, redigez par escript en fourme de chroniques annales ou hystoires commençant l’an 1532. Ed. Gustave Revilliod. Geneva: Jules Guillaume Fick, 1854. Garanderie, M.-M. de la, ed. La correspondance d’Erasme et de Guillaume Budé. Paris, 1967. Gatien-Arnoult. “Cinq lettres de Boyssoné à J. de Coras.” Revue du Département du Tarn 3 (1881): 180–184. Giesendorf, Paul F., ed. Livre des habitants de Genève: I. 1549–1560. Geneva: Droz, 1957. Granvelle, Antoine Perrenot de. Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle (1516–1565). Ed. Charles Weiss. 9 vols. Collection de documents inédits sur l’histoire de France. Paris, 1841–1852. Guise, Charles de, cardinal of Lorraine. Lettres du Cardinal Charles de Lorraine (1525–1574). Ed. Daniel Cuisiat. Geneva: Droz, 1998. Herminjard, A.-L., ed. Correspondance des réformateurs dans les pays de langue française. 9 vols. Geneva: H. Georg / Paris: Michel Levy, 1866–1897. Reprint, Nieuwkoop: B. de Graaf, 1965.

bibliography

737

——, ed. La Réforme à Metz: Six lettres inédites de Farel et de Pierre Toussain (1525– 1526). Paris: Ch. Noblet, 1876. Higman, Francis M. La diffusion de la Réforme en France, 1520–1565. Publications de la Faculté de Théologie de l’Université de Genève 17. Geneva: Éditions Labor et Fides, 1992. Huguenin, J.-F., ed. Les chroniques de la ville de Metz (900–1552). Metz: S. Lamort, 1838. Jacoubet, Henri, ed. Les poésies latines de Jehan de Boyssoné. Toulouse: Édouard Privat, 1931. Jacoubet, Henri. “La correspondance de Jehan de Boyssoné.” Annales du Midi 41 (1929): 168–179; 42 (1930): 257–294, 382–408; 43 (1931): 40–85. Journal d’un bourgeois de Paris. Ed. Ludovic Lalanne. Société de l’Histoire de France. Paris: Renouard, 1854. Reprint, New York, 1965. Journal d’un bourgeois de Paris sous le règne de François Ier (1515–1536). Ed. V.-L. Bourrilly. Paris: Alphonse Picard et fils, 1910. Kaulek, Jean, ed. Correspondance politique de Ms. de Castillon et de Marillac, ambassadeurs de France en Angleterre, 1537–1542. Paris, 1885. La Marck, Robert de, seigneur de Fleuranges. Histoire des choses mémorables. Nouvelle collection de mémoires pour servir à l’histoire de France, 1st ser. Ed. J.-F. Michaud et J.-J. F. Poujoulat. Paris: Guyot et frères, 1838. Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques et al. Épistres & Évangiles pour les cinquante & deux sepmaines de l’an: Fac-simile de la première édition Simon Du Bois. Ed. M. A. Screech. Geneva: Droz, 1964. ——. Epistres et Evangiles pour les cinquante et deux dimenches de l’an: Texte de l’édition Pierre de Vingle. Ed. Guy Bedouelle and Franco Giacone. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976. Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques, trans. Le Nouveau Testament: Fac-simile de la première édition Simon de Colines, 1523. Ed. M. A. Screech. 2 vols. Classiques de la Renaissance en France. East Ardsley, England: S. R. Publishers; New York: Johnson Reprint Co., 1970. ——, trans. Quincuplex Psalterium: Fac-similé de l’édition de 1513. Ed. Guy-Thomas Bedouelle. Geneva: Droz, 1979. Lefranc, Abel and Jacques Boulenger, eds. Comptes de Louise de Savoie (1515, 1522) et de Marguerite d’Angoulême (1512, 1517, 1524, 1529, 1539). Paris: Honoré Champion, 1905. Lenz, Max, ed. Briefwechsel Landgraf Philipps des Grossmüthigen von Hessen mit Bucer. 3 vols. Publikation aus den K. Preussischen Staatsarchiven 4, 28, and 47. Leipzig, 1880–1891. Reprint, Osnabrück: Otto Zeller, 1965. Le Roux de Lincy, A., ed. Recueil de chants historiques depuis le XIIe jusqu’au XVIIIe siècle avec des notices et une introduction. 2 vols. Paris: Gosselin, 1841–1842. Reprint, Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1969. ——, ed. Procès-verbal des délibérations tenues à l’Hôtel de Ville de Paris pendant la captivité de François Ier. Paris: Firmin Didot, 1844. Longeon, Claude, ed. Documents d’archives sur Étienne Dolet. Centre d’Études de la Renaissance et de l’Âge Baroque. Saint-Étienne: Université de Saint-Étienne, 1977. Louise de Savoie. Journal de Louise de Savoie. In Nouvelle collection de mémoires pour servir à l’histoire de France, 1st ser, vol. 5, 83–93. Ed. J.-F. Michaud et J.-J. F. Poujoulat. Paris: Guyot frères, 1851. Loyola, Ignatius of. Letters of St. Ignatius of Loyola. Selected and translated by William J. Young. Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1959. Luther, Martin. D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe, 61 vols. Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1883–1983. ——. D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe, Briefwechsel, 18 vols. Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1930–1985. Macrin, Jean Salmon. Épithalames & Odes. Ed. Georges Soubeille. Textes de la Renaissance 20. Paris: Honoré Champion, 1998.

738

bibliography

Mansi, Joannes Dominicus. Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio. Vol. 35 (1798), 325–328. Facsimile reprints, Paris: Hubert Welter, 1902 and Graz, Austria: Akademische Druck / U. Verlagsanstalt, 1961. Marguerite de Navarre. Chansons spirituelles. Ed. Georges Dottin. Geneva: Droz, 1971. ——. La coche. Ed. Robert Marichal. Geneva: Droz, 1971. ——. Les comédies bibliques. Ed. Barbara Marczuk with Beata Skrezeszewska and Piotr Tylus. TLR 531. Geneva: Droz, 2000. ——. Les dernières poésies de Marguerite de Navarre. Ed. Abel Lefranc. Paris: Armand Colin, 1896. ——. Dialogue en forme de vision nocturne. Ed. Renja Salminen. Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, ser. B, vol. 227. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1985. ——. Heptaméron des nouvelles de très illustre Princesse Marguerite d’Angoulême, Reine de Navarre. Ed. A. Le Roux de Lincy and Anatole de Montaiglon. 4 vols. Paris: Eudes, 1880. ——. Heptaméron. Ed. Simone de Reyff. Paris: Flammarion, 1982. ——. Heptaméron. Ed. Renja Salminen. TLF 516. Geneva: Droz, 1999. ——. Les marguerites de la marguerite des princesses: Texte de l’édition de 1547 publiés avec introduction, notes et glossaire. Ed. Félix Frank. 4 vols. Paris, 1873. Reprint, in one volume, Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1970. ——. Miroir de Jhesus Christ crucifié. Ed. L. Fontanella. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’ Orso, 1984. ——. Le miroir de l’âme pécheresse. Ed. Renja Salminen. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1979. ——. Le miroir de l’âme pécheresse: Discord etant en l’homme par contrariete de l’esprit et de la chair. Oraison a Nostre Seigneur Jesus Christ. Ed. Joseph L. Allaire. Humanistische Bibliothek: Abhandlung und Texte, Reihe II, 10. Munich: Wilhelm Fink, 1972. ——. Le navire ou consolation du roi François Ier à sa sœur Marguerite. Ed. Robert Marichal. Paris: Honoré Champion, 1956. ——. Œuvres complètes. 4 of 11 vols. to date. General ed. Nicole Cazauran. Paris: Honoré Champion, 2001–. ——. Oraison à Nostre Seigneur Jésus Christ. Ed. Renja Salminen. Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, ser. B, vol. 215. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1981. ——. Petit œuvre dévot et contemplatif: Neuedition und Versuch einer Erklärung. Ed. Hans Sckommodau. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann, 1960. ——. Les prisons. Ed. Simone Glasson. TLF 260. Geneva: Droz, 1978. ——. Les prisons: A French and English Edition. Ed. Claire Lynch Wade. American University Studies, ser. 2, vol. 99. New York: Peter Lang, 1989. ——. Le théâtre profane. Ed. V.-L. Saulnier. Geneva: Droz, 1965. Marillac, Charles de. Charles de Marillac, ambassadeur et homme politique sous les règnes de François Ier, Henry II et François II, 1510–1560. Ed. Pierre de Vaissiere. Paris: H. Welter, 1896. Reprint, Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1971. Marot, Clément. L’enfer, les coq-à-âne, les élégies. Ed. C. A. Mayer. Paris: Honoré Champion, 1977. ——. Œuvres complètes de Clément Marot: vol. 1; Les Épîtres. Ed. C. A. Mayer. Paris: A. G. Nizet, 1977. ——. Œuvres poétiques. 2 vols. Ed. Gérard Defaux. Paris: Classiques Garnier 1996 [1990] and 1993. Martene, Edmund and Ursini Durand, eds. Veterum scriptrorum et monumentorum historicorum, dogmaticorum, moralium amplissima collectio. Paris: Montalant, 1733.

bibliography

739

Melanchthon, Philipp. Melanchthons Briefwechsel: kritische und kommentierte Gesamtausgabe. 2 separate series: Regesten and Texte. Ed. Heinz Scheible. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt, 1978–. ——. Melanchthons Werke in Auswahl. Ed. Robert Stupperich. Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann Verlag, 1951–1955. ——. Philippi Melanchthonis opera quae supersunt omnia. Ed. C. Gottlieb and C. G. Bretschneider. Halle, Saxony: C. A. Schwetschke and sons, 1834–1860. Reprint, New York: Johnson Reprint Co., 1963. Ménard, M. Histoire civile, ecclésiastique, et littéraire de la ville de Nîmes: texte et notes; Suivie de dissertations historiques et critiques sur ses antiquités, et de diverses observations sur son histoire naturelle. Paris, 1753. Reprint, Nîmes: Clavel-Ballivert, 1874. Menot, Michel. Sermons choisis de Michel Menot (1508–1518). Ed. Joseph Nève. New ed. Bibliothèque du XVe siècle 29. Paris: Édouard Champion, 1924. Métivier, Jean de. Chronique du Parlement de Bordeaux. Ed. Arthur de Brezetz and Jules Delpit. 2 vols. Publications de la Société des Bibliophiles de Guyenne. Bordeaux: Société des Bibliophiles, 1886–1887. Migne, Jacques-Paul, ed. Patrologiae cursus completus . . . Series Latina. 221 vols. Paris: Garnier frères and J.-P. Migne héritiers, 1844–1882. Oecolampadius, Johannes. Brief und Akten zum Leben Oekolampads. Ed. Ernst Staehelin. 2 vols. Quellen und Forschungen zur Reformationsgeschichte 10. Leipzig: M. Heinsius Nachfolger Eger and Sievers, 1927 and 1934; New York: Johnson Reprint Co., 1971. Olin, John C., ed. The Catholic Reformation: Savonarola to Ignatius Loyola: Reform in the Church 1495–1540. New York: Harper & Row, 1969. Ordonnances des rois de France: règne de François Ier. 9 vols. to date. Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1902–. Pellicier, Guillaume. Correspondance politique de Guillaume Pellicier, ambassadeur de France à Venise (1540–1542). Ed. Alexandre Tausserat-Radel. 2 vols. Paris, 1899. ——. La diplomatie français vers le milieu du XVIe siècle, d’après la correspondance de Guillaume Pellicier, évêque de Montpellier, ambassadeur de François Ier à Venise, 1539–1542. Ed. Jean Zeller. 2 vols. Paris: Hachette, 1881. Reprint, Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1969. Picot, Émile, ed. Chants historiques français du XVIe siècle. Paris: A. Colin, 1903. ——, ed. Recueil général des sotties. 3 vols. Paris: Firmin Didot et Cie, 1902–1912. Picot, Émile, ed., with Paul Lacombe. Querelle de Marot et Sagon: Pièces réunies. Rouen, 1920. Reprint, Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1969. Politische Correspondenz der Stadt Strassburg im Zeitalter der Reformation. Ed. Hans Vrick, Otto Winckelmann, Harry Gerber, and W. Friedensburg. 6 vols. Urkunden und Akten der Stadt Strassburg. Strasbourg: Trübner, 1882–1898; Heidelberg: Winters, 1928–1933. Rabelais, François. Gargantua. Ed. M. A. Screech. TLF 163. Geneva: Droz, 1970. ——. Pantagruel. Ed. V.-L. Saulnier. TLF 2. Geneva: Droz, 1965 [1946]. ——. Le tiers livre. Ed. M. A. Screech. TLF 102. Geneva: Droz, 1974 [1964]. ——. Le quart livre. Ed. Robert Marichal. TLF 10. Geneva: Droz, 1947. ——. Pantagrueline prognostication pour l’an 1533. Ed. M. A. Screech. TLF 215. Geneva: Droz, 1974. Raemond, Florimond de. L’histoire de la naissance, progrez, et decadence de l’hérésie de ce siècle, divisee en huict livres. Rouen: J. Berthelin, 1623 [1st ed., Paris: Charles Chastellain, 1605]. Reuchlin, Johannes. Johann Reuchlins Briefwechsel. Ed. L. Geiger. Tübingen, “1975” [1875!]. Rhenanus, Beatus. Briefswechsel des Beatus Rhenanus. Ed. Adalbert Horawitz and Karl Hartfelder. Leipzig: B. O. Teubner, 1886.

740

bibliography

Ribier, Guillaume, ed. Lettres et mémoires d’estat, de roys, princes, ambassadeurs et autres ministres, sous les regnes de François premier, Henri II et François II. 2 vols. Paris, 1666. Rice, Eugene F., Jr., ed. The Prefatory Epistles of Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples and Related Texts. New York: Columbia University Press, 1972. Scalamandrè, Raffael, ed. Un poeta della Preriforma: Charles Fontaine. Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1970. Selve, Odet de. Correspondance politique d’Odet de Selve (1546–1549). Ed. G. LefèvrePontalis. Inventaire analytique des archives du ministère des affaires étrangères. Paris, 1888. Seyssel, Claude de. The Monarchy of France. Trans. J. H. Hexter and ed. D. R. Kelley. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1981. Shell, Marc. Elizabeth’s glass within: “The glass of the Sinful Soul” (1544) by Elizabeth I, and “Epistle dedicatory” & “Conclusion” (1548) by John Bale. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1993. Sleidan, Johannes. De statu religionis et reipublicae Carlo Quinto Caesare commentarii. New ed. 1785–1786; facsimile Osnabrück: Otto Zeller, 1976. Sturm, Jean. Quarti antipappi tres partes priores: 1. Commonitio. 2. Antiprooemium. 3. Anthosiander [Antipappus quartus]. Naples: Matthaei Harnisch, 1580. Tommaseo, N., ed. Relations des ambassadeurs vénitiens sur les affaires de France. 2 vols. Paris, 1838. Tournon, François de. Correspondance du Cardinal François de Tournon (1521–1562). Ed. Michel François. Paris: Honoré Champion, 1946. Versoris, Nicolas. Journal d’un bourgeois de Paris sous François Ier. Le livre de raison de Maitre Nicolas Versoris, avocat au Parlement de Paris (1519–1530). Ed. Philippe Joutard. Paris: Union générale d’Éditions, 1963. ——. Le livre de raison de Nicolas Versoris, avocat au Parlement de Paris (1515–1530). Ed. Gustave Fagniez. In Mémoires de la Société de l’histoire de Paris et de l’Île-deFrance 12 (1885): 99–222. Offprint, Paris: Société de l’histoire de Paris, 1885. Voragine, Jacobus de. The Golden Legend: Readings on the Saints. Trans. William Granger Ryan. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993. Wibel, Johann Christian. Merckwürdige Lebens-Geschichte des Grafen Sigmunds von Hohenlohe. Frankfort and Leipzig, 1748. Wollick, Nicolas (Volcyr de Sérouville, Nicolas). L’histoire et Recueil de la triumphante et glorieuse victoire obtenue contre les seduyctz et abusez Lutherines mescreans du pays Daulsays et autres par tres hault te tres puissant prince et seigneur Anthoine, par la grace de Dieu duc de Calabre, de Lorraine et de Bar. [1526?] Zwingli, Ulrich. Huldreich Zwinglis sämtliche Werke. 14 vols. Ed. Emil Egli et al. Corpus Reformatorum 88–101. Berlin: Schwetschke, 1905—Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1991. Secondary Literature “Autour de Marguerite d’Angoulême, duchesse de Berry et reine de Navarre, 1492– 1549.” Cahiers d’archéologie et d’histoire du Berry 96 (1989). Allaire, Joseph Leo. “L’évangélisme de Marguerite de Navarre.” Ph.D. thesis, Wayne State University, 1966. Allmand, Christopher, ed. Power, Culture, and Religion in France, c. 1350–1550. Woodbridge, UK: The Boydell Press, 1989. Armstrong, Elizabeth. Before Copyright: The French Book-Privilege System 1498–1526. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Aubert, Louis. “Un opuscule de Farel.” Musée neuchâtelois (1930): 167–179. Audisio, Gabriel. Le barbe et l’inquisiteur: procès du barbe vaudois Pierre Griot par l’inquisiteur Jean de Roma (Apt, 1532). Aix-en-Provence: Édisud, 1979. Autin, M. Albert. La crise du nicodémisme (1535–1545): un épisode de la vie de Calvin. Toulon: Paul Tissot, 1917.

bibliography

741

Barnaud, J. Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples, son influence sur les origines de la Réformation française. Cahors: Imprimerie de A. Coueslant, 1900. ——. “Lefèvre d’Étaples et Bédier. Les premiers assauts donnés à la Réforme française.” BSHPF 85 (1936): 251–279. Barthel, Pierre, Rémy Scheurer, and Richard Stauffer, eds. Actes du colloque Guillaume Farel: Neuchâtel, 29 septembre–1er octobre 1980. 2 vols. Cahiers de la Revue de théologie et de philosophie 9, nos. 1 and 2 (1983). Geneva: Revue de la théologie et de philosophie, 1983. Baumgartner, Frederic J. Change and Continuity in the French Episcopate: The Bishops and the Wars of Religion, 1547–1610. Durham: Duke University Press, 1986. Baux, E. “Louise de Savoie et Claude de France à Lyon. Étude sur la première régence, 1515–1516.” Revue d’histoire de Lyon 1 (1902): 390–407, 447–484. Le Béarn sous Jeanne d’Albret 1583–1983: 4e centenaire de la publication des Psaumes en béarnais par Arnaud de Salette. Exposition organized by Per Noste and the Bibliothèque Municipale de Pau, 1984. Nîmes: Imprimerie Bernier, 1984. Becker, Philippe-Auguste. “Les idées religieuses de Guillaume Briçonnet, évêque de Meaux.” Revue de théologie et de questions religieuses 9 (1900): 318–358, 377–416. ——. “Marguerite de Navarre, duchesse d’Alençon, et G. Briçonnet, évêque de Meaux, d’après leur correspondance manuscrite (1521–1524), suivi d’un tableau chronologique.” BSHPF (1900): 393–477, 661–667. Bedos-Rezak, Brigitte. Anne de Montmorency, seigneur de la Renaissance. Paris: Éditions Publisud, 1990. Bedouelle, Guy. Lefèvre d’Étaples et l’intelligence des Écritures. THR 152. Geneva: Droz, 1976. ——. Le quincuplex Psalterium de Lefèvre d’Étaples: Un guide de lecture. Geneva: Droz, 1979. ——. “Une adaptation des Epistres et Evangiles de Lefèvre d’Étaples et de ses disciples.” BHR 48 (1986): 723–734. ——. “Le débat catholique sur la traduction en langue vulgaire.” In Théorie et pratique de l’exégèse, ed. Francis Higman, 39–59. Geneva: Droz, 1990. ——. “Lefèvre d’Étaples et Erasme: une amitié critique.” In Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples (1450?–1536): Actes du colloque d’Étaples les 7 et 8 novembre 1992, ed. Jean-François Pernot, 23–42. Paris: Honoré Champion, 1995. ——. “Lefèvre d’Étaples et Luther. Une recherche de frontières, 1517–1537.” Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuse 63 (1983): 17–31. ——. “Lefèvre et ses disciples.” BSHPF 134 (1988): 669–672. Bedouelle, Guy and Bernard Roussel. Le temps des Réformes et la Bible. Bible de tous les Temps 5. Paris: Beauchesne, 1989. ——. “La lecture de la Bible en langue vivante au XVIe siècle: chronologie de quelques textes et faits marquants.” In Théorie et pratique de l’exégèse, ed. Francis Higman, 61–76. Geneva: Droz, 1990. Bedouelle, Guy and Patrick Le Gal. Le “Divorce” du roi Henry VIII: Études et documents. Geneva: Droz, 1987. Belle, Edmond. “La Réforme à Dijon des origines à la fin de la lieutenance générale de Gaspard de Saulx-Tavanes (1530–1570).” Revue bourguignonne 21 (1911): 1–245. Benedict, Philip. Rouen during the Wars of Religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. ——. “Settlements: France.” In Handbook of European History, 1400–1600: Late Middle Ages, Renaissance, and Reformation, 2 vols., ed. Thomas A. Brady, Jr., Heiko A. Oberman, and James D. Tracy, vol. 2, 417–454. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1995. Benedict, Philip, Silvana Seidel-Menchi, and Alain Tallon, eds. La Réforme en France et en Italie: Contacts, Comparaisons et Contrastes. Rome: École Française de Rome, 2007. Bense, Walter. “Noël Beda and the Humanist Reformation at Paris, 1504–1534.” Ph.D. Thesis, Harvard Divinity School, 1967.

742

bibliography

Berger, Samuel. “Le procès de Guillaume Briçonnet au Parlement de Paris, en 1525.” BSHPF 44 (1895): 7–22. Bernard, Robert W. “Platonism-Myth or Reality in the Heptaméron?” SCJ 5 (1974): 3–14. Berthoud, Gabrielle. Antoine Marcourt, réformateur et pamphlétaire du “Livre des marchans” aux placards de 1534. THR 129. Geneva: Droz, 1973. ——. “Les ‘Ajournés’ du 25 janvier 1535.” BHR 25 (1963): 307–324. ——. “La ‘Confession’ de maître Noël Béda et le problème de son auteur.” BHR 29 (1967): 373–397. ——. “Lettres de réformés saisies à Lyon en août 1538.” In Études et documents inédits sur la Réformation en suisse romande, 87–111. Lausanne: Imprimerie La Concorde, 1936. Offprint from Revue de théologie et de philosophie (1933 and 1936). Berthoud, G. and A. Labhardt, “Lettre de Lefèvre d’Étaples à Guillaume Farel du 13 janvier 1524. Présentation et traduction.” Librarium [Zurich] 26 (1983): 216–217. Berthoud, Gabrielle et al. Aspects de la propagande religieuse. Geneva: Droz, 1957. Bietenholz, Peter G. Basle and France in the Sixteenth Century: The Basle Humanists and Printers in their Contacts with Francophone Culture. THR 112. Geneva: Droz, 1971. ——. “ ‘Simulatio:’ Érasme et les interprétations controversées de Galates 2:11–14.” In Actes du colloque international Érasme (Tours, 1986), ed. Jacques Chomarat, André Godin, and Jean-Claude Margolin, 160–169. Geneva: Droz, 1990. Biondi, Albano. Eresia e riforma nell’Italia del Cinquecento, miscellanea I. Florence: C. C. Sansoni: Chicago: The Newberry Library, 1974. Blaisdell, Charmarie Jenkins. “Calvin’s Letters to Women: The Courting of Women in High Places.” SCJ 13 (1982): 67–84. ——. “Marguerite de Navarre and Her Circle.” In Female Scholars: A Tradition of Learned Women before 1800, ed. J. R. Brink, 40–41. Montreal: Eden Press Women’s Publications, 1980. ——. “Renée de France between Reform and Counter-Reform.” ARG 63 (1972): 196–226. Blind, Henri-Albert. Marguerite de Navarre dans ses rapports avec la Réforme. Thèse présentée à la Faculté de Théologie Protestante . . . pour obtenir le grade de Bachelier en Théologie. Strasbourg: Imprimerie de Jean-Henri Edouard Heitz, 1868. Bloch, Marc. Les rois thaumaturges. Strasbourg: Librairie Istra, 1924; The Royal Touch: Sacred Monarchy and Scrofula in England and France. Trans. J. E. Anderson, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1973. Reprint, New York: Dorset Press, 1989. Block, Joseph S. Factional Politics and the English Reformation 1520–1540. Royal Historical Society Studies in History 66. Woodbridge, UK: The Boydell Press, 1993. Boinet, Amédée. “Le livre d’heures de Marguerite de Valois, sœur de François I, conservé au musée du Louve.” Paris / Nogent le-Rotrou: Daupeley Gouverneur, 1906. Offprint from Mémoires de la Société nationale des antiquaires de France 65 (n.d.), 274–290. Bonnet, Jules. “La jeunesse de Renée de France.” BSHPF 15 (1866): 65 and 175. ——. “Marguerite d’Angoulême, reine de Navarre, et Renée de France (1535–36).” BSHPF 37 (1888): 113–123. ——. “Quatre lettres inédites de Marguerite de Navarre, sœur de François Ier à Renée de France, duchesse de Ferrare, 1529–1536.” BSHPF 15 (1866): 125–31. Bonney, Richard. The European Dynastic States, 1494–1660. The Short Oxford History of the Modern World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991. Bordenave, N. de. Histoire de Béarn et Navarre. Ed. P. Raymond. Société de l’Histoire de France. Paris: Vve. J. Renouard, 1873. Boulay [Bulaeus], César-Égasse. Historia Universitatis Pariensis. 6 vols. Paris: Petrus de Bresche, François Noël, 1665–1673. Reprint, Frankfurt am Main: Minerva, 1966.

bibliography

743

Boulet, M. “Les élections épiscopales en France au lendemain du Concordat de Bologne (1516–1531).” Mélanges de l’École française de Rome 58 (1940): 190–324. Bourrachot, Lucile, Jean Burias, and Anne Marie Labit. “Marguerite d’Angoulême et la cour de Nérac.” Chapter in idem, eds., Histoire du protestantisme en Agenais: Musée d’Agen, 12–12–65 au 31–3–66. Agen: Blanchard, 1965. Bourrilly, V.-L. Guillaume Du Bellay, seigneur de Langey, 1491–1543. Paris: Société nouvelle de librairie et d’édition, 1905. ——. “Le cardinal Jean Du Bellay en Italie.” Revue des études rabelaisiennes 5 (1907): 233–255 and 329–390. ——. “Correspondance de Guillaume Du Bellay.” Revue de la Renaissance 5 (1904): 161–170; 6 (1905): 45–50, 106–110, 243–246, and 283–291. ——. “François Ier et les Protestants: les essais de concorde en 1535.” BSHPF 49 (1900): 337–365, 477–495. ——. “Jean Sleidan et le cardinal Du Bellay: premier séjour de Jean Sleidan en France (1533–1540).” BSHPF 50 (1901): 225–242. ——. “Une lettre inédite de Louis de Berquin (26 décembre 1526).” BSHPF 51 (1902): 634–637. Bourrilly, V.-L. and Nathaniel Weiss. “Jean Du Bellay, les protestants et la Sorbonne (1529–1535).” BSHPF 52 (1903): 193–231; 53 (1904): 97–143. Boutry, L. “Les chartes de charité de Henri et de Marguerite de Navarre.” Revue internationale de sociologie 8 (1900): 867–876. Bouwsma, William. John Calvin: A Sixteenth-Century Portrait. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988. Brady, Thomas A., Jr. Protestant Politics: Jacob Sturm (1489–1553) and the German Reformation. Studies in German Histories. New Jersey: Humanities Press, 1995. ——. Ruling Class, Regime, and Reformation at Strasbourg, 1520–1555. SMRT 22. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1978. Brady, Thomas A., Jr., Heiko A. Oberman, and James D. Tracy, eds. Handbook of European History, 1400–1600: Late Middle Ages, Renaissance, and Reformation. 2 vols. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994–1995. Brandi, Karl. The Emperor Charles V. London: Cape, 1939. Bretonneau, Guy. Histoire généalogique de la maison des Briçonnets. Paris, 1620. Bruening, Michael W. Calvinism’s First Battleground: Conflict and Reform in the Pays de Vaud, 1528–1559. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, 2005. Brimont, Théodoric, vicomte de. Le XVIe siècle et les guerres de la Réforme en Berry. 2 vols. Paris: Alphonse Picard et fils, 1905. Britnell, Jennifer. Jean Bouchet. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press for the University of Durham, 1986. Brothwood, Maureen. “Marguerite de Navarre: The Via crucis and ‘Rheno-Flamand’ Influences.” BHR 58 (1996): 597–610. Broutin, Paul. L’évêque dan la tradition pastorale du XVIe siècle: Adaptation française de “Das Bischofsideal der katholischen Reformation” par Hubert Jedin. Bruges: Desclée De Brouwer, 1953. Augmented French translation of Hubert Jedin. “Das Bischofsideal der katholischen Reformation.” In Sacramentum Ordinis: Festschrift zum 60. Priesterjublileum des Kard. Bertram. Breslau: E. Prisik and K. Kriss, 1942. Brown, Cynthia J. “Text, Image, and Authorial Self-Consciousness in Late Medieval Paris.” In Printing the Written Word: The Social History of Books, circa 1450–1520, ed. S. Hindman, 103–142. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1991. Brush, John Woolman. “Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples: Three Phases of his Life and Work.” In Reformation Studies: Essays in Honor of Roland Bainton, ed. F. H. Little, 117–128. Richmond: John Knox Press, 1962. Bryson, David M. Queen Jeanne and the Promised Land: Dynasty, Homeland, Religion and Violence in Sixteenth-Century France. Studies in Intellectual History 97. Leiden: Brill, 1999.

744

bibliography

——. “The Vallant Letters of Jeanne d’Albret: Fact or Forgery?” French History 13 (1999): 16–186. Buisson, Albert. Le chancelier Antoine Duprat. Paris: Hachette, 1935. Burger, Christoph. “Calvin comme maître de ses amis dans la première de ses Epistolae duae (1537).” In Calvin et ses contemporains: Actes du colloque de Paris 1995, ed. Olivier Millet, 149–162. Cahiers d’humanisme et Renaissance 53. Geneva: Droz, 1998. Burckhardt-Biederman, Theophil. “Über Zeit und Ablaß des Flugblattes: Luther als Hercules Germanicus.” Basler Zeitschrift für Geschichte und Altertumskunde 4 (1905): 38–44. Cabantous, Marius. Marguerite d’Angoulême et les débuts de la Réforme: Étude historique. Thèse de la Faculté de Théologie Protestante de Montauban, 1989. Cadier, Léon et Henri Courteault. Le livre de syndics des États de Béarn. Archives Historiques de la Gascogne 18. Paris-Auch: Champion-Cocharaus, 1889–1906. Cameron, Euan. The Reformation of the Heretics: The Waldenses of the Alps, 1480–1580. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984. Cameron, Richard M. “The Attack on the Biblical Works of Lefèvre d’Étaples, 1514– 1521.” Church History 38 (1969): 9–24. ——. “The Charges of Lutheranism Brought against Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples.” Harvard Theological Review 63 (1970): 119–49. Carley, James P. “French Evangelical Books at the Court of Henry VIII.” In Le livre évangélique en français avant Calvin: Études originales, publications d’inédits, catalogues d’éditions anciennes, ed. Jean-François Gilmont and William Kemp, 130–146. Nugae humanisticae sub signo Erasmi 4. Turnhout: Brepols, 2004. ——. “‘Her moost lovyng and fryndely brother sendeth gretyng:’ Anne Boleyn’s Manuscripts and Their Sources.” In Illuminating the Book: Makers and Interpreters; Essays in Honour of Janet Backhouse, ed. Michelle P. Brown and Scot McKendrick, 261–280. London and Toronto: The British Library and University of Toronto Press, 1998. Cartier, Alfred and Adolphe Chenevière. Antoine Du Moulin, valet de chambre de la reine de Navarre. Paris, 1896. Offprint from Revue d’histoire littéraire de la France 2 (1895): 468–90; 3 (1896): 90–106, 218–44. Caumont, C. R. de. Histoire de Marguerite de Valois, reine de Navarre, sœur de François I. 2 vols. Amsterdam: J. L. Lorme and Est. Roger, 1696. Causse, Maurice. “Les dissimulations de Marguerite de Navarre et l’Aventure Nicodémite.” BSHPF 132 (1986): 347–390. ——. “ ‘La Familière Exposition’ de Gérard Roussel et l’aventure ‘Nicodémite’ en Guyenne.” BSHPF 131 (1985): 5–33. Cazauran, Nicole. “Les citations bibliques dans l’Heptaméron.” In Prose et prosateurs à la Renaissance: Mélanges offerts à R. Aulotte, 153–163. Paris: SEDES, 1988. Cazauran, Nicole and James Dauphiné. Marguerite de Navarre, 1492–1992: Actes du colloque international de Pau (1992). Mont-de-Marsan: Éditions InterUniversitaires, 1995. Cazaux, Yves. “Les sources septentrionales, méridionales et orientales de la pensée de Marguerite d’Angoulême.” In Arnaud de Salette et son temps: le Béarn sous Jeanne d’Albret. Colloque international d’Orthez, 16, 17, 18 février 1983, 55–65. Orthez: Per Noste, 1984. Chareyre, Philippe. “ ‘The Great Difficulties One Must Bear to Follow Jesus Christ:’ Morality at Sixteenth-Century Nîmes.” In Sin and the Calvinists: Morals Control and the Consistory in the Reformed Tradition, ed. Raymond A. Mentzer, 63–96. Sixteenth Century Essays Studies 32. Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Essays Studies, 1994. Chartier, Roger. The Cultural Uses of Print in Early Modern France. Translated by Lydia G. Cochrane. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987.

bibliography

745

Chevalier, Bernard. “France from Charles VII to Henry IV.” In Handbook of European History, 1400–1600: Late Middle Ages, Renaissance, and Reformation, 2 vols., ed. Thomas A. Brady, Jr., Heiko A. Oberman, and James D. Tracy, vol. 1, 369–401. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1995. Chevalier, Bernard and Robert Sauzet, eds. Les réformes enracinement socio-culturel: XXVe colloque international d’études humanistes, Tours, 1er–13 juillet 1982. Paris: Éditions de La Maisnie, 1982. Cholakian, Patricia F. and Rouben C. Cholakian. Marguerite de Navarre: Mother of the Renaissance. New York: Columbia University Press, 2006. Christiani, Louis. “Josse Clichtove et son Antilutherus.” Revue des questions historiques 89 (1911): 120–134. ——. “Luther et la Faculté de Théologie de Paris.” Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique française 32 (1946): 53–83. Christie, Richard Copley. Étienne Dolet. Revised ed. London: Macmillan and Co., 1899. Clemen, Otto. “Die Schmalkaldener und Frankreich im Mai 1543.” ARG 37 (1940): 222–227. ——. “Zwei Briefe von Baslius Monner.” Mitteilungen der Vereinigung für Gothaische Geschichte und Altertumsforschung (1912): 109–111. Clerval, Jules-Alexandre. De Iudoci Clichtovei Neoportuensis vita et operibus, 1472–1543. Paris: Alphonse Picard, 1894. Clutton, George. “Simon Du Bois of Paris and Alençon.” Gutenberg-Jahrbuch (1937): 124–130. Colletet, Guillaume. Vie d’Étienne Dolet: Édition établie par Michel Magnien d’après le ms. BN n.a.fr. 3073. Geneva: Droz, 1992. Collignon, Albert. “Le mécénat du Cardinal Jean de Lorraine (1498–1550).” Annales de l’Est 24 (1910): 7–175. Colloque Marguerite de Navarre (15–16 février, 1992). Nice: Faculté des Lettres, Arts et Science Humaines, 1993. Cooper, Richard. Litterae in tempore belli: Études sur les relations littéraires italo-françaises pendant les guerres d’Italie. THR 308. Geneva: Droz, 1997. ——. “Humanism and Politics in Lyon in 1533.” In Intellectual Life in Renaissance Lyon: Proceedings of the Cambridge Lyon Colloquium 14–16 April 1991, ed. Philip Ford and Gillian Jondorf, 1–31. Cambridge: Cambridge French Colloquia, 1993. ——. “Marguerite de Navarre et la Réforme italienne.” In Marguerite de Navarre, 1492–1992: Actes du colloque international de Pau (1992), ed. Nicole Cazauran and James Dauphiné, 159–188. Mont-de-Marsan: Éditions InterUniversitaires, 1995. ——. “Marguerite de Navarre et ses poètes italiens.” In Les visages et les voix de Marguerite de Navarre: Actes du colloque international sur Marguerite de Navarre, Duke University, 10–11 avril 1992, ed. Marcel Tetel. Paris: Klincksieck, 1995. Cottrell, Robert. The Grammar of Silence: A Reading of Marguerite de Navarre’s Poetry. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1986. ——. “The Poetics of Transparency in Evangelical Discourse: Marot, Briçonnet, Marguerite de Navarre, Héroët.” In Lapidary Inscriptions: Renaissance Essays for Donald A. Stone, Jr., ed. Barbara C. Bowen and Jerry C. Nash, 32–44. French Forum Monographs 74. Lexington, Kentucky: French Forum Publishers, 1991. Cottret, Bernard. Calvin: Biographie. Paris: Jean-Claude Lattès, 1995. Couture, Léon de. “Marguerite d’Angoulême, reine de Navarre et Vittoria Colonna.” Revue de Gascogne 18 (1877): 408–422. Crouzet, Denis. La genèse de la Réforme française, 1520–1562. Regards sur l’histoire, Histoire moderne 109. Ed. Jean-Pierre Poussou. Paris: SEDES, 1996. ——. Les guerriers de Dieu: La violence au temps des troubles de religion (vers 1525–vers 1610). 2 vols. Seyssel: Champ Vallon, 1990.

746

bibliography

——. “Circa 1533: Anxieties, Desires, and Dreams.” Journal of Early Modern History 5 (2001): 24–61. Dalmases, Cándido de. Ignatius of Loyola, Founder of the Jesuits: His Life and Work. Trans. Jerome Aixalá. St. Louis: Institute of Jesuit Sources, 1985 [1982]. Dardier, Charles. “Origines de la Réforme à Nîmes jusqu’à l’établissement d’un consistoire (1532–1561).” BSHPF 29 (1880): 481–499. Darmesteter, Mary James. La reine de Navarre. Paris, 1900. Dartigue-Peyrou, Charles. Jeanne d’Albret et le Béarn, d’après les délibérations des États et les registres du Conseil Souverain (1552–1572). Mont-de-Marsan: Jean-Lacoste, 1934. ——. La vicomté de Béarn sous le règne d’Henri d’Albret. Le Puy-en-Velay: Imprimerie la Haute-Loire; Paris: Société d’édition de Belles Lettres, 1934. Davis, Natalie Zemon. Society and Culture in Early Modern France. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1975. ——. “Holbein’s Pictures of Death and the Reformation at Lyon.” Studies in the Renaissance 3 (1956): 97–130. ——. “The Sacred and the Body Social in Sixteenth-Century Lyon.” Past and Present 90 (1981): 40–70. Decrue, Francis. Anne de Montmorency, grand maître et connétable de France à la cour, aux armées, et au conseil du roi François Ier. 2 vols. Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1885–1889. Reprint, in one volume, Geneva: Mégariotis Reprints, 1978. Defaux, Gérard. Le poète en son jardin: Étude sur Clément Marot et “l’Adolescence clémentine.” Collection Unichamps 51. Paris: Honoré Champion, 1996. ——, ed. La génération Marot: Poètes français et néo-latins (1515–1550); Actes du colloque international de Baltimore, 5–7 décembre 1996. Colloques, congrès et conférences sur la Renaissance 11. Paris: Honoré Champion, 1997. Defaux, Gérard and Michel Simonin, eds. Clément Marot: “prince des poètes françois,” 1496–1996; Actes du colloque international de Cahors-en-Quercy, 21–25 mai, 1996. Colloques, congrès et conférences sur la Renaissance 8. Paris: Honoré Champion, 1997. Defaux, Gérard and Frank Lestringant. “Marot et le problème de l’évangélisme: À propos de trois articles récents de C. A. Mayer.” BHR 54 (1992): 125–130. Degret, Antoine. Procès de huit évêques français suspects de Calvinisme. Paris, 1904. Offprint from Revue des questions historiques (1904). ——. “L’évêque d’Oloron, G. Roussel et la curie romaine.” Revue de Gascogne (1904): 227–228. Déjean, Jean-Luc. Marguerite de Navarre. Paris: Fayard, 1987. Delisle, Léopold. “Notice sur un registre des procès-verbaux de la Faculté de théologie de Paris (1501–1533).” Notices et extraits des manuscrits 36 (1899): 315–407. Delumeau, Jean and Thierry Wanegffelen. Naissance et affirmation de la Réforme. 14th ed. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1997. Demerson, Mme Guy. “La poésie neo-latine du cardinal Jean Du Bellay.” In Actes du colloque Renaissance-classicisme du Maine, Le Mans 1971, 309–328. Paris: Nizet, 1975. Desan, Philippe. “Le feuilleton illustré Marot-Sagon.” In La génération Marot: Poètes français et néo-latins (1515–1550); Actes du colloque international de Baltimore, 5–7 décembre 1996, ed. Gérard Defaux, Colloques, 346–380. Congrès et conférences sur la Renaissance 11. Paris: Honoré Champion, 1997. Desjardins, E. Anne de Pisseleu, duchesse d’Étampes et François Ier. 1904. Desnos, Odolant. Mémoires historiques sur la ville d’Alençon. 2 vols. 1787. Despierres, Gérasime. “L’imprimerie à Alençon de 1529 à 1575.” Bulletin historique et philosophique du Comité des travaux historiques et scientifiques (1893). Reprint, Établissement d’imprimeries à Alençon de 1529 à 1575. Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1894.

bibliography

747

Diefendorf, Barbara. Paris City Councillors in the Sixteenth Century: The Politics of Patrimony. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983. Diller, Georges T. “Puy-Herbualt, Marot et Charles de Sainte-Marthe.” Humanisme et Renaissance 20 (1938): 143–147. Les dominicains en France devant la Réforme, 1520–1563. Special edition of Mémoire dominicaine: histoire, documents, et vie dominicaine 12. Paris: Cerf, 1998. Doucet, Roger. Les bibliothèques parisiennes au XVIe siècle. Paris: Picard, 1956. ——. L’état des finances de 1523. Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1923. ——. Étude sur le gouvernement de François Ier dans ses rapports avec le Parlement de Paris. 2 vols. Paris: Libraire Édouard Champion, 1921–1926. ——. Les institutions de la France au XVIe siècle. 2 vols. Paris: Picard, 1948. Douen, O. “Les premières professions de foi des protestants français: Robert Estienne, Lefèvre d’Étaples, Calvin.” BSHPF 43 (1894): 449–454. ——. “Le réformateur Pierre Caroli et l’imprimeur Simon Dubois.” BSHPF 45 (1896): 200–212. Douglass, Jane Demsey. Women, Freedom & Calvin. The Annie Kinkead Warfield Lectures. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1985. ——. “Marie Dentière’s Use of Scripture in her Theology of History.” In Biblical Hermeneutics in Historical Perspective: Studies in Honor of Karlfried Froehlich on His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. Mark S. Burrows and Paul Rorem, 227–244. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1991. Doumergue, Émile. Jean Calvin: Les hommes et les choses de son temps. 7 vols. Lausanne: Georges Bridel, 1899–1927. Droz, Eugénie. Chemins de l’hérésie: Textes et documents. 4 vols. Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1970–1976. ——. “Claude Baduel: Traducteur de Bucer.” BHR 17 (1955): 347–350. ——. “Les étudiants français de Bâle.” BHR 20 (1958): 108–142. ——. “Une impression inconnue de Pierre de Vingle: Les prières et oraisons de la Bible [Lyon], 19 août 1530.” BHR 20 (1958): 158–169. ——. “La reine Marguerite de Navarre et la vie littéraire à la cour de Nérac.” Bulletin de la Société des bibliophiles de Guyenne 33 (1964): 77–120. Dubarat, Victor-Pierre, ed. Documents et bibliographie sur la Réforme en Béarn et au Pays Basque. 2 vols. Pau: Vignancour, 1900 and Pau: G. Lescher-Moutoué, 1904. Dupèbe, Jean. “Un document sur les persécutions de l’hiver 1533–1534 à Paris.” BHR 48 (1986): 405–417. Dupèbe, Jean and Philippe Hamon. “Humanistes en famille: Les Meigrets.” BHR 52 (1990): 333–344. Durengues, A. “Gérard Roussel, abbé de Clairac, évêque d’Oloron.” Revue de l’Agenais 43 (1916): 340–362. Duval, F. “Essai sur Marguerite d’Angoulême et Charles d’Alençon.” In Positions des thèses soutenues par les élèves de l’École des Chartes, 1901. Dykema, Peter A. and Heiko A. Oberman, eds. Anticlericalism in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe. SMRT 51. Leiden: Brill, 1993. Edelstein, Marilyn M. “Church Patronage in France on the Eve of the Reformation.” In Renaissance Society and Culture: Essays in Honor of Eugene F. Rice, Jr., ed. John Monfasani and Roland G. Musto, 33–49. New York: Italica Press, 1991. ——. “Foreign Episcopal Appointments during the Reign of Francis I.” Church History 44 (1975): 1–10. ——. “The Social Origins of the Episcopacy in the Reign of Francis I.” French Historical Studies 8 (1974): 377–92. Edwards, Mark U. Printing, Propaganda, and Martin Luther. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994. Eire, Carlos M. N. War against the Idols: The Reformation of Worship from Erasmus to Calvin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.

748

bibliography

——. “Calvin and Nicodemism: A Reappraisal.” SCJ 10 (1979): 41–69. ——. “Prelude to Sedition? Calvin’s Attack on Nicodemism and Religious Compromise.” ARG 76 (1985): 120–146. Elwood, Christopher Lee. The Body Broken: The Calvinist Doctrine of the Eucharist and the Symbolization of Power in France, 1530–1570. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999. Engammaire, Max. Le Cantique des Cantiques de Salomon: Translaté d’ebrieu en francoys par Olivetan, (1535–1538). Mémoire de Licence. Université de Lausanne, Faculté de Théologie, 1987. Estèbe (Garrisson), Janine. “Vers une autre religion et une autre église (1536–1598)?” In Histoire des protestants en France, ed. Robert Mandrou, 45–116. Toulouse: Edward Privat, 1977. Eurich, A. Amanda. The Economics of Power: The Private Finances of the House of Foix-Navarre-Albret during the Religious Wars. Sixteenth Century Essays & Studies 24. Kirksville, Missouri: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1994. Farge, James K. Orthodoxy and Reform in Early Reformation France: The Faculty of Theology of Paris, 1500–1543. SMRT 32. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1985. ——. “Early Censorship in Paris: A New Look at the Roles of the Parlement of Paris and of King Francis I.” Renaissance and Reformation / Renaissance et Réforme 25 (1989): 173–183. ——. “Marguerite de Navarre, Her Circle, and the Censors of Paris.” In International Colloquium Celebrating the 500th Anniversary of the Birth of Marguerite de Navarre, April 13 & 14, 1992, ed. Régine Reynolds-Cornell, 15–28. Birmingham, AL: Summa, 1995. Farinelli, A. Dante e Margherita di Navarra. Rome, 1902. Offprint from Rivista d’Italia (1902). Favyn, A. Histoire de Navarre. Paris, 1612. Febvre, Lucien. Amour sacré, amour profane: Autour de l’Heptaméron. Paris: Gallimard, 1944. ——. Au cœur religieux du XVIe siècle. 2nd ed. Paris: École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, 1983 [1957]. ——. Life in Renaissance France. Trans. Marian Rothstein. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1977. ——. Le problème de l’incroyance au XVIe siècle: La religion de Rabelais. Paris: Éditions Albin Michel, 1968 [1942]; The Problem of Unbelief in the Sixteenth Century: The Religion of Rabelais. Trans. Beatrice Gottlieb. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982. ——. “Dolet, propagateur de l’évangile.” BHR 6 (1945): 98–170. Febvre, L. and H. J. Martin. L’apparition du livre. Paris: Albin Michel, 1958. Ferguson, Gary. Mirroring Belief: Marguerite de Navarre’s devotional poetry. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press, 1992. ——. “Now in a Glass Darkly: The Textual Status of the je parlant in the Miroirs of Marguerite de Navarre.” Renaissance Studies 5 (1991): 398–411. Firpo, Massimo. “The Italian Reformation and Juan de Valdés.” SCJ 27 (1996): 353–364. Ford, Philip and Gillian Jondorf, eds. Humanism and Letters in the Age of the François Ier: proceedings of the Fourth Cambridge French Renaissance Colloquium, 19–21 September 1994. Cambridge: Cambridge French Colloquia, 1996. Forissier, Marc. Histoire de la Réforme en Béarn. 2 vols. Tarbes: Édit. d’Albret, 1951. Fraenkel, Pierre, ed. Pour retrouver François Lambert: biobibliographie et études. Bibliotheca Bibliographica Aureliana 108. Baden-Baden and Bouxwiller: Éditions Valentin Koerner, 1987. François, Michel. Le cardinal François de Tournon: Homme d’état, diplomate, mécène et humaniste (1489–1562). Paris: Boccard, 1951.

bibliography

749

Frank, Félix. “Marguerite d’Angoulême, sœur de François Ier, reine de Navarre et l’esprit nouveau en France au XVIe siècle.” Revue moderne 38 (1866): 220–242. Frederichs, Julius. De Secte der Loïsten of Antwerpsche Libertijnen, 1525–1545: Eligius Pruystinck (Loy de Schaliedecker) en zijne Aanhangers. Gent: J. Vuylsteke, ’s-Gravenhage [la Haye]: Martinus Nijhoff, 1891. ——. “Un luthérien français devenu libertin spirituel: Christophe Hérault et les Loïstes d’Anvers (1490–1544).” BSHPF 41 (1892): 250–269. Freer, Martha Walker. The Life of Marguerite d’Angoulême. 2 vols. London, 1898. Fumaroli, Marc. L’âge de l’éloquence: rhétorique et “res literaria” de la Renaissance au seuil de l’époque classique. Geneva: Droz, 1980. Reprint, Paris, Albin Michel, 1994. Gäbler, Ulrich. “Zum Abschluß des Edition von Zwinglis Reformationsschriften.” Zwingliana 21 (1994): 99–106. Gadoffre, Gilbert. Du Bellay et le sacré. Paris, Gallimard, 1978. ——. La révolution culturelle dans la France des humanistes: Guillaume Budé et François Ier. Titre Courant 8. Geneva: Droz, 1997. Galpern, A. N. The Religions of the People in Sixteenth-Century Champagne. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1976. Ganoczy, Alexandre. Le jeune Calvin: Genèse et évolution de sa vocation réformatrice. Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Europäische Geschichte Mainz 40. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1966. Garnier-Mathez, Isabelle. L’épithète et la connivence: Écriture concertée chez les Évangéliques français (1523–1534). THR 154. Geneva: Droz, 2005. Garside, Charles, Jr. “La farce des théologastres: Humanism, Heresy, and the Sorbonne, 1523–1525.” Rice University Studies 60 (1974): 45–82. Gaufrès, M. J. Claude Baduel et la réforme des études au XVIe siècle. Paris: Hachette, 1880. Gaullieur, Ernest. Histoire de la Réformation à Bordeaux et dans le ressort du Parlement de Guyenne. 2 vols. Paris-New York-Bordeaux, 1884. Giacone, Franco. “Le premier ouvrage de Marguerite de Navarre: Dialogue en forme de vision nocturne ou Pater Noster?” In Marguerite de Navarre, 1492–1992: Actes du colloque international de Pau (1992), ed. Nicole Cazauran and James Dauphiné, 261–289. Mont-de-Marsan: Éditions InterUniversitaires, 1995. Gilmont, Jean-François. Jean Calvin et le livre imprimé. Geneva: Droz, 1997. ——. Palaestra typographia: Aspects de la production du livre humaniste et religieux au XVIe siècle. Aubel, Belgium: P.-M. Gason, 1984. Gilmont, Jean-François, ed. La Réforme et le livre: l’Europe de l’imprimé (1517–v.1570). Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1990. Gilmont, Jean-François and William Kemp, eds. Le livre évangélique en français avant Calvin: Études originales, publications d’inédits, catalogues d’éditions anciennes / The French Evangelical Book Before Calvin: Original Analyses, Newly Edited Texts, and Bibliographical Catalogues. Nugae humanisticae sub signo Erasmi 4. Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2004. Ginzburg, Carlo. Il nicodemismo: Simulazione e dissimulazione religiosa nell’Europa de l’500. Turin: Einaudi, 1970. Girot, Jean-Eudes. “La poétique du coq-à-l’asne: autour d’une version inédite du ‘Grup’ de Clément Marot(?).” In La génération Marot: Poètes français et néo-latins (1515–1550); Actes du colloque international de Baltimore, 5–7 décembre 1996, 315–346. Ed. Gérard Defaux. Colloques, congrès et conférences sur la Renaissance 11. Paris: Honoré Champion, 1997. Gohin, F. “Huitains inédits de Marguerite de Navarre et d’un amant platonique.” Mélanges offerts à M. Émile Picot par ses amis et ses élèves. 2 vols. Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1969 [1913], 395–407. Graf, Charles Henri. Essai sur la vie et les écrits de Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples. Strasbourg, 1842. Reprint, Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1970.

750

bibliography

Graves, William Lamar. “The Politics of Reform: Marguerite of Navarre, 1521–1535.” Ph.D. thesis, Texas Christian University, 1979. Greengrass, Mark. The French Reformation. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1987. ——. “France.” In The Reformation in National Context, ed. Bob Scribner, Roy Porter, and Mikulás Teich, 47–66. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. ——. “Property and Politics in Sixteenth-Century France: the Landed Fortune of Constable Anne de Montmorency.” French History 2 (1988): 371–398. Griffiths, Gordon. “Louise of Savoy and the Reformation of the Church.” SCJ 10 (1979): 29–36. Guérin, (Chanoine). La bienheureuse Marguerite de Lorraine. Paris: Téqui, 1921. Guérin, Paul. “Poursuites contre les réformés d’Alençon, 1533–1534.” BSHPF 33 (1884): 112–128 and 162–175. Guillaume Farel, 1489–1565: biographie nouvelle écrite d’après les documents originaux par groupe d’historiens, professeurs et pasteurs de Suisse, de France et d’Italie. Neuchâtel and Paris, 1930. Reprint, Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1978. Gundersheimer, Werner L., ed. French Humanism, 1470–1600. London: Macmillan, 1969. Guy, Henri, ed. “Le sermon d’Aimé Meigret.” Annales de l’Université de Grenoble, new. ser., Lettres-Droits 5 (1928): 181–222. Hall, Basil. John Calvin: Humanist and Theologian. Historical Association Publications 33. London: The Historical Association, 1956. Hamm, Berndt. “Normative Centering in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries: Observations on Religiosity, Theology, and Iconology.” Trans. John M. Frymire. Journal of Early Modern History 3 (1999): 307–354. Hamon, Philippe. L’argent du roi: Les finances sous François Ier. Paris: Comité pour l’histoire économique et financière de la France, 1994. ——. “Messieurs des finances:” Les grands officiers de finances dans la France de la Renaissance. Paris: Comité pour l’histoire économique et financière de la France, 1999. Hamy, Le P. A. Entrevue de François Ier avec Henry VIII à Boulogne-sur-Mer en 1532: Intervention de la France dans l’affaire du divorce, d’après un grand nombre de documents inédits. Paris, 1898. Hanley, Sarah. The Lit de Justice of the Kings of France: Constitutional Ideology in Legend, Ritual, and Discourse. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983. Harding, Robert. Anatomy of a Power Elite: The Provincial Governors of Early Modern France. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1978. Hari, Robert. “Les placards de 1534.” In Aspects de la propagande religieuse, ed. Gabrielle Berthoud et al., 78–142. THR 28. Geneva: Droz, 1957. Harvitt, Hélène. Eustorg de Beaulieu: A Disciple of Marot, 1495(?)–1552. New York: Columbia University Press, 1918. Reprint, New York: AMS Press, 1966. Hasenclever, A. “Die Geheimartikel zum Friede von Crépy vom 19 September 1544.” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 45 (1926): 418–426. Haureau, B. “Louis de Berquin, 1523–1529: la poursuite de l’hérésie, l’alliance du Parlement et de la Sorbonne.” Revue des deux mondes 79 (1869): 454–481. Hauser, Henri. Études sur la Réforme française. Paris: Picard, 1909. ——. “Étude critique sur le Journal de Louise de Savoie.” Revue Historique 86 (1904): 280–303. ——. “Lettres closes de François Ier sur les protestants de Savoie (1538): conservées aux archives de Riom.” BSHPF 43 (1894): 594–598. Hauser, Henri and Augustin Renaudet. Les débuts de l’âge moderne. Peuples et Civilisations VIII. 4th ed. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1956. Hawkins, Richmond Laurin. Maistre Charles Fontaine Parisien. Harvard Studies in Romance Languages 2. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1916. Heller, Henry. The Conquest of Poverty: The Calvinist Revolt in Sixteenth-Century France. SMRT 35. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1986.

bibliography

751

——. “Les artisans au début de la Réforme. Hommage à Henri Hauser.” In Les Réformes enracinement socio-culturel: XXVe colloque international d’études humanistes Tours, 1er–13 juillet 1982, ed. Bernard Chevalier et Robert Sauzet, 327–335. Paris: Éditions de La Maisnie, 1985. ——. “The Briçonnet Case Reconsidered.” Journal of Mediaeval and Renaissance Studies 2 (1972): 223–258. ——. “The Evangelicism of Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples: 1525.” Studies in the Renaissance 19 (1972): 42–77. ——. “Famine, Revolt and Heresy at Meaux: 1521–1525.” ARG 68 (1977): 133–157. ——. “Nicholas of Cusa and Early French Evangelicism.” ARG 63 (1972): 6–21. ——. “Marguerite of Navarre and the Reformers of Meaux.” BHR 33 (1971): 279–310. ——. “Reform and Reformers at Meaux, 1518–1525.” Ph.D. thesis, Cornell University, New York, 1969. ——. “An Unknown Letter from Clement VII to Gérard Roussel.” BHR 38 (1976): 489–492. Hémardinquer, J. J. “Les prisons d’un poète: Charles de Sainte-Marthe (1537–1543).” BHR 20 (1958): 177–183. ——. “A propos du procès d’hérésie contre Aimé Meigret (Grenoble, 1524).” BHR 19 (1957): 480–481. Hempsall, David S. “The Languedoc 1520–1540: A Study of Pre-Calvinist Heresy in France.” ARG 62 (1971): 225–244. ——. “Martin Luther and the Sorbonne, 1519–1521.” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 46 (1973): 28–40. ——. “Measures to suppress ‘la peste luthérienne’ in France, 1521–1522.” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 49 (1976): 296–299. Henry-Bordeaux, Paul. Louise de Savoie, régente et ‘roi’ de France. Paris: Plon, 1954; New ed., Louise de Savoie, ‘roi’ de France. Paris: Perrin, 1971. “Les hérétiques ajournés par les gens du roi, avec Pierre Caroli, Clément Marot, Mathurin Cordier, etc.,” BSHPF 11 (1862): 253–258. Higman, Francis M. Bibliographie matérielle et histoire intellectuelle: Les débuts de la Réforme française. The Cassal Bequest Lecture delivered before the University of London on 29 April 1986. University of London, 1986. ——. Censorship and the Sorbonne: A Bibliographical Study of Books in French Censured by the Faculty of Theology of the University of Paris, 1520–1551. THR 172. Geneva: Droz, 1979. ——. La diffusion de la Réforme en France, 1520–1565. Geneva: Éditions Labor et Fides, 1992. ——. Lire et découvrir: La circulation des idées au temps de la Réforme. THR 326. Geneva: Droz, 1998. ——. “De l’affaire des Placards aux Nicodémites: le mouvement évangélique français sous François Ier.” Études théologiques et religieuses 70 (1995): 359–366. ——. “Bucer et les nicodémites.” In Martin Bucer and Sixteenth-Century Europe: Actes du colloque de Strasbourg, 28–31 août 1991, 2 vols., ed. Christian Krieger and Marc Lienhard, vol. 2, 645–658. SMRT 52 and 53. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1993. ——. “Genevan Printing and French Censorship, 1520–1551.” In Cinq siècles d’imprimerie Genevoise: Actes du colloque international sur l’histoire de l’imprimerie et du livre à Genève 27–30 avril 1978, ed. Jean-Daniel Candaux and Bernard Lescaze, 31–53. Geneva: Société d’histoire et d’archéologie, 1980. ——. “Les débuts de la polémique contre la messe: De la tressaincte cene de nostre Seigneur et de la messe qu’on chante communement.” In Le livre et la Réforme, ed. Rodolphe Peter and Bernard Roussel, 35–92. Bordeaux: Société des bibliophiles de Guyenne, 1987. ——. “Le domaine français, 1520–1562.” In La Réforme et le livre: l’Europe de l’imprimé (1517–v.1570), ed. Jean-François Gilmont, 105–154. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1990.

752

bibliography

——. “Farel et Luther dans la bibliothèque d’Anne de Montmorency?” BHR 53 (1991): 415–418. ——. “Le levain de l’évangile.” In Historie de l’édition française: Le livre conquérant du moyen âge au milieu du XVIIe siècle, ed. Bernard Chevalier and Henri-Jean Martin, 305–325. Paris: Promodis, 1982. ——. “Luther et la piété de l’église gallicane: le Livre de vraye et parfaicte oraison.” Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuse 63 (1980): 91–111. ——. “Premières réponses catholiques aux écrits de la Réforme en France, 1525–c. 1540.” In Le livre dans l’Europe de la Renaissance: Actes du XXVIIIe colloque international d’études humanistes de Tours, ed. P. Aquilon et Henri Jean Martin, 361–377. Paris: Promodis, 1988. ——. “Simon Du Bois à Paris en 1534?” BHR 42 (1980): 413–419. ——. “Les traductions françaises de Luther, 1524–1550.” In Palaestra Typographia: Aspects de la production du livre humaniste et religieux au XVIe siècle, ed. JeanFrançois Gilmont, 11–54. Aubel, Belgium: P.-M. Gason, 1984. ——. “Theology for the Layman in the French Reformation 1520–1550.” The Library, 6th ser., 9 (1987): 105–127. ——. “Theology in French: Religious Pamphlets from the Counter-Reformation.” Renaissance and Modern Studies (1979): 128–146. ——. “The Question of Nicodemism.” In Calvinus ecclesiae genevensis custos, ed. Wilhelm H. Neuser, 165–170. Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Peter Lang, 1984. Hindman, Sandra, ed. Printing the Written Word: The Social History of Books, circa 1450–1520. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1991. Hobbs, R. Gerald. “Le félin et le dauphin: Martin Bucer dédie ses commentaires sur le psautier au fils de François Ier.” In Le livre et la Réforme, ed. Rodolphe Peter and Bernard Roussel, 217–232. Bordeaux: Société des bibliophiles de Guyenne, 1987. Hoffman, Philip T. Church and Community in the Diocese of Lyon, 1500–1789. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984. Holban, Marie. “Autour du livre d’heures de Marguerite de Valois.” In In memoria lui Vasile Parvan volum publicat de Asociatia academica “Vasile Pärvan” a Fostilore membri ai Scoalei Romane din Roma, 168–180. Bucharest: A.F.M.S.R.R., 1934. ——. “François Du Moulin de Rochefort et la querelle de la Madeleine.” Humanisme et Renaissance 2 (1935): 26–43, 147–171. ——. “Le journal de Louise de Savoie.” Revue roumaine d’histoire 28 (1989): 451–464. Holt, Mack P., ed. Society and Institutions in Early Modern France. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press, 1991. ——. “Wine, Community, and Reformation in Sixteenth-Century Burgundy.” Past and Present 138 (1993): 58–93. Hours, Henri. “Procès d’hérésie contre Aimé Maigret (Lyon-Grenoble: 1524).” BHR 19 (1957): 14–43. Hufstadter, Anselm. “Lefèvre d’Étaples and the Magdalene.” Studies in the Renaissance 16 (1969): 31–60. Hughes, Philip Edgcumbe. Lefèvre: Pioneer of Ecclesiastical Renewal in France. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1984. Huppert, Georges. Les Bourgeois Gentilshommes: An Essay on the Definition of Elites in Renaissance France. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1977. ——. Public Schools in Renaissance France. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1984. ——. “Classes dangereuses: École et Réforme en France, 1530–1560.” Les réformes enracinement socio-culturel: XXVe colloque international d’études humanistes Tours, 1er–13 juillet 1982, ed. Bernard Chevalier et Robert Sauzet, 327–335. Paris: Éditions de La Maisnie, 1985. ——. “François Ier et la première guerre de religion en Suisse.” Revue des questions historiques 71 (1902): 464–537.

bibliography

753

Hyrvoix de Landosle, Albert. “Noël Bédier d’après des documents inédits (1533–34).” Revue des questions historiques 72 (1902): 578–591. Ives, Eric W. The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn: ‘The Most Happy’. Oxford: Blackwell, 2004. ——. “The Queen and the Painters: Anne Boleyn, Holbein and Tudor Royal Portraits.” Apollo (1994): 36–45. Imbart de la Tour, Pierre. Les origines de la Réforme. 4 vols. Paris, 1905–1935. Reprint, Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1978. Jacquart, Jean. François Ier. Paris: Fayard, 1994 [1981]. Jacques Lefèvre d’Étapes (1450?–1536): Actes du colloque d’Étapes les 7 et 8 novembre 1992. Colloques, congrès et conférences sur la Renaissance 5. Paris: Honoré Champion, 1995. Jouanna, Arlette. La France du XVIe siècle. 2nd ed. Paris: Presses Universitaire de France, 1997. Jourda, Pierre. Marguerite d’Angoulême, duchesse d’Alençon, reine de Navarre (1492–1549): Étude biographique et littéraire. 2 vols. Bibliothèque Littéraire de la Renaissance, new ser., 19. Paris: Honoré Champion, 1930. Reprint, Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1978. ——. “Un disciple de Marot: Victor Brodeau.” Revue d’histoire littéraire de la France (1921): 30–59, 208–228. ——. “Lettres inédits de Victor Brodeau.” In Mélanges offerts à Abel Lefranc, ed. Jacques Lavaud, 155–160. Paris: Droz, 1936. ——. “Marguerite de Navarre: Dialogue en forme de vision nocturne.” Revue du seizième siècle 13 (1926), 177–204. ——. “Le mécénat de Marguerite de Navarre.” Revue du seizième siècle 18 (1931): 253–271. ——. “Tableau chronologique des publications de Marguerite de Navarre.” Revue du seizième siècle 12 (1925): 209–255. Offprint, Paris: Edouard Champion, 1925. Jung, Marc-René. Hercule dans la littérature française du XVIe siècle. Geneva: Droz, 1966. Kelley, Donald R. The Beginning of Ideology: Consciousness and Society in the French Reformation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. Kemp, William. “Latomus, F. Gryphe, Augereau and the Aldine Romans in Paris, 1531–1533.” The Library 13 (1991): 23–47. ——. “Lesperon de discipline d’Antoine Du Saix (1532) et l’imprimeur de Pantagruel, Claude Nourry dit ‘Le Prince.’ ” Études rabelaisiennes 39 (2001): 23–37. ——. “Le livre et l’imprimé à Paris 1531–1535: Lectures du T. IV de l’Inventaire chronologique.” In Studi in memoria di Antonio Possentii, 341–374. Ed. Gabriella Almanza Ciotti et al. Pisa: Istituti Editoriali e Poligrafici Internazionali, 1998. ——. “Marguerite of Navarre, Clément Marot, and the Augereau Editions of the Miroir de l’âme pécheresse.” Journal of the Early Book Society 2 (1999): 113–156. Kemp, William and Diane Desrosiers-Bonin. “Marie d’Ennetières et la petite grammaire hébraïque de sa fille d’après la dédicace de l’Epistre à Marguerite de Navarre (1539).” BHR 60 (1998): 117–134. Kingdon, Robert M. Church and Society in Reformation Europe. Variorum Reprints, 1985. Knecht, Robert J. French Renaissance Monarchy: Francis I & Henry II. 2nd ed. London: Longman, 1996 [1984]. ——. Renaissance Warrior and Patron: Reign of Francis I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. ——. “The Concordat of 1516: A Re-assessment.” University of Birmingham Historical Journal 9 (1963–1964): 16–32. ——. “Francis I, ‘Defender of the Faith.’ ” In Wealth and Power in Tudor England: Essays Presented to S. T. Bindoff, ed. E. W. Ives, R. J. Knecht and J. J. Scarisbrick, 106–127. London: University of London, Athlone Press, 1978.

754

bibliography

Koenigsberger, H. G. and George L. Mosse. Europe in the Sixteenth Century. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1968. La Ferrière-Percy, Hector Artaud, comte de. Marguerite d’Angoulême, sœur de François Ier: Son livre de dépenses (1540–1549); Étude sur ses dernières années. Paris: Aubry, 1862. Landa, Paul J. “The Reformed Theology of Gerard Roussel, Bishop of Oloron (1536– 1555), based upon a Critical Edition of his Familiere exposition du simbole, de la loy et oraison dominicale en forme de colloque and his Forme de visite de diocese (c. 1548).” Ph.D. Thesis, Vanderbilt University, 1976. Laprade, Jacques de and Pierre Bayaud. Richesses anciennes du château de Pau: Un inventaire des bijoux, joyaux, bibelots précieux de Marguerite d’Angoulême (1535). Pau: I. C. P., 1962. Offprint from Bulletin des amis du château de Pau, no. 12 (1961). Larcher, Charles. “Marguerite d’Angoulême dans ses rapports avec la Réforme. Étude historique.” Thèse, Montauban, 1883. Larmat, Jean. “L’image de la société française au début du XVIe siècle dans les sermons de Michel Menot.” In Études de philologie romane et d’histoire littéraire offertes à Jules Horrent à l’occasion de son soixantième anniversaire, ed. Jean-Marie d’Heur and Nicoletta Cherubini, 715–725. Liège: J.-M. d’Heur and N. Cherubini, 1980. Lauvergnat-Gagnière, Christine. “Un peu de nouveau sur Nicolas Bourbon l’ancien.” BHR 53 (1991): 663–693. Le Clech, Sylvie. Chancellerie et culture: Au XVIe siècle (les notaires et secrétaires du roi de 1515 à 1547). Toulouse: Presses Universitaire du Mirail, 1993. ——. “Jacques Thiboust, Notaire et secrétaire du Roi et Familier de Marguerite de Navarre: Amitiés littéraires dans le Berry du ‘beau seizième siècle.’” “Autour de Marguerite d’Angoulême, duchesse de Berry et reine de Navarre, 1492–1549.” Cahiers d’archéologie et d’histoire du Berry 96 (1989): 17–27. Le Gall, Jean-Marie. Les moines au temps des réformes: France (1480–1560). Seyssel: Champ Vallon, 2001. Le Grand, Joachim. Histoire du divorce de Henry VIII, roy d’Angleterre, et de Catherine d’Aragon. 3 vols. Paris: M. G. Baguenault, 1688. Le Roy Ladurie, Emmanuel. Les paysans de Languedoc. Paris: SEVPEN, 1966; The Peasants of Languedoc. Trans. John Day. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1976. Lebeau, Jean and Jean-Marie Valentin. L’Alsace au siècle de la Réforme, 1482–1621. Textes et documents. Nancy: Presses Universitaires de Nancy, 1985. Leblanc, P. La poésie religieuse de Clément Marot. Paris: Nizet, 1955. Lecoq, Anne-Marie. François Ier imaginaire: Symbolique et politique à l’aube de la Renaissance française. Paris: Macula, 1987. Lefranc, Abel. Histoire du Collège de France depuis ses origines. Paris: Hachette, 1893. ——. Les idées religieuses de Marguerite de Navarre d’après son œuvre poétique, Les Marguerites et Les dernières poésies. Paris, 1898. Reprint, Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1969. ——. “Un nouveau registre de la Faculté de Théologie de Paris au XVIe siècle.” BHSPF 51 (1902): 14–19. Lemaître, Nicole. Le Rouergue flamboyant: Le clergé et les fidèles du diocèse de Rodez, 1417–1563. Paris: Cerf, 1988. Lemaître, Nicole and Michel Veissière. “Lefèvre d’Étaples, Marguerite de Navarre, et les évêques de leur temps.” In Marguerite de Navarre, 1492–1992: Actes du colloque international de Pau (1992), ed. Nicole Cazauran and James Dauphiné, 109–134. Mont-de-Marsan: Éditions InterUniversitaires, 1995. Lembright, Robert. “Louise de Savoie et Marguerite d’Angoulême. Renaissance Patronage and Religious Reform.” Ph.D. thesis, The Ohio State University, 1974.

bibliography

755

——. “Le mécénat de Marguerite de Navarre.” Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société archéologique et historique de la Charente 149 (1993): 132–159. Léonard, Émile G. Histoire général du protestantisme. 3 vols. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1961; 2nd ed, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1980. 1st ed. translated as A History of Protestantism. Trans. Joyce M. H. Reid. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1968. Leroy, P.-E., ed. Le beau XVIe siècle troyen: Aspects de la vie politique, économique, artistique, littéraire et religieuse à Troyes de 1480 à 1550. Troyes: Centre troyen de recherche et d’études Pierre et Nicolas Pithou, 1989. Lestocquoy, J. “Les évêques français au milieu du XVIe siècle.” Revue d’histoire de l’Église de France 45 (1959): 25–40. Levi, A. H. T., ed. Humanism in France at the End of the Middle Ages and in the early Renaissance. New York: Barnes & Noble, 1970. ——. “Humanist Reform in Sixteenth-Century France.” Heythrop Journal 6 (1965): 447–464. Livet, Georges and Francis Rapp. Strasbourg au cœur religieux du XVIe siècle: Hommage à Lucien Febvre. Actes du colloque international de Strasbourg (25–29 mai 1975). Strasbourg: Istra, 1977. Lovy, René-Jacques. Les origines de la Réforme française: Meaux, 1518–1546. Paris: Libraire Protestante, 1959. MacNeil, D. O. Guillaume Budé and Humanism in the Reign of Francis I. Geneva: Droz, 1975. Magnier, Michael. “Charles de Sainte-Marthe et son Oraison funèbre de la mort de l’incomparable Marguerite, royne de Navarre (1550).” Travaux de Littérature 7 (1994): 65–90. Maître, H. B. “Les théologastres de l’Université de Paris au temps d’Érasme et de Rabelais.” BHR 27 (1965). Major, J. Russell. “The Crown and Aristocracy in Renaissance France.” In Lordship and Community in Late Medieval Europe, ed. Frederic L. Cheyette, 240–254. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1968. Mandrou, Robert. Introduction à la France moderne (1500–1640): Essai de psychologie historique. L’Évolution de l’humanité 36. Paris: Albin Michel, 1974 [1961]; Introduction to Modern France, 1500–1640: An Essay in Historical Psychology. Trans. R. E. Hallmark. New York: Holmes & Meier, 1975. ——. “Pourquoi se réformer?” In Histoire des Protestants en France. Toulouse: Edward Privat, 1977. ——. “Le renouvellement de l’historiographie de la Réforme: Lucien Febvre et la Réforme.” In Historiographie de la Réforme, ed. Philippe Joutard, 339–351. ParisNeuchâtel-Montréal: Delachaux and Nestlé, 1977. Mann-Phillips, Margaret. Érasme et les débuts de la Réforme française (1517–1536). Paris, 1934. Reprint, Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1978. ——. “Louis de Berquin et l’Enchiridion d’Érasme.” Revue du seizième siècle 18 (1931): 89–103. ——. “Louis de Berquin, traducteur d’Érasme.” Revue du seizième siècle 18 (1931): 308–323. Mantovani Thierry. “La querelle de Marot et de Sagon: essai de mise au point.” In La génération Marot: Poètes français et néo-latins (1515–1550); Actes du colloque international de Baltimore, 5–7 décembre 1996, ed. Gérard Defaux, 381–404. Congrès et conférences sur la Renaissance 11. Paris: Honoré Champion, 1997. Marichal, Robert. “Antoine d’Oraison, premier traducteur français de Luther.” BHR 9 (1947): 78–108. Martin, Hervé. Le métier de prédicateur en France septentrionale à la fin du Moyen Age (1350–1520). Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf.

756

bibliography

Martin, M. Guillaume Budé, le livre de l’Institution du Prince. Europäische Hochschulschriften, 20th ser, Philosophie 120. Berne: P. Long, 1983. Martin, Victor. Le gallicanisme politique et le clergé de France. Paris: Alphonse Picard, 1929. ——. Les origines du gallicanisme. 2 vols. Paris: Bloud and Gay, 1939. Reprint, Geneva: Mégariotis Reprints, 1978. Martineau, Christine. “La lectio divina dans l’Heptaméron.” In Colloque Marguerite de Navarre (15–16 février, 1992), 21–42. Nice: Faculté des Lettres, arts et sciences humaines, Université de Nice-Sophia Antipolis, 1993. ——. “Le platonisme de Marguerite de Navarre?” Réforme, Humanisme, Renaissance 4 (1976): 12–35. ——. “La voix de l’Évangélisme dans l’Heptaméron de Marguerite de Navarre.” In Annales de la Faculté des Lettres et Sciences humaines de Nice 39 (1983): 385–391. Martineau, Christine, and Michel Veissière. “Une édition de la correspondance de Guillaume Briçonnet et de Marguerite d’Angoulême (1521–1524).” Revue française d’histoire du livre, new. ser., 10 (1976): 195–203. Massaut, Jean-Pierre. Critique et tradition à la veille de la Réforme en France: Étude suivie de textes inédits traduits et annotés. Paris: J. Vrin, 1974. ——. Josse Clichtove: l’humanisme et la réforme du clergé. 2 vols. Liège: Bibliothèque de la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres de l’Université de Liège; Paris Société d’Éditions “Les Belles Lettres, ” 1968. ——. “Thèmes ecclésiologiques dans les controverses antiluthériennes de Clichtove: pouvoir, ordre, hiérarchie.” In Les réformes enracinement socio-culturel: XXVe colloque international d’études humanistes Tours, 1er–13 juillet 1982, ed. Bernard Chevalier et Robert Sauzet, 327–335. Paris: Éditions de La Maisnie, 1985. Matheson, Peter. “Martyrdom or Mission? A Protestant Debate.” ARG 80 (1989): 154–172. Mattingly, Garret. Renaissance Diplomacy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1955. Reprint, Baltimore: Penguin, 1964. Mayer, C. A. “Anne Boleyn et la version originale du ‘Sermon du bon pasteur’ d’Almanque Papillon.” BSHPF 132 (1986): 337–346. ——. “Clément Marot et Marguerite d’Angoulême.” Revue d’histoire littéraire de la France 86 (1986): 813–830. ——. “The Problem of Dolet’s Evangelical Publications.” BHR 17 (1955): 404–414. McCrie, C. G. Contemporary Portraits of Reformers of Religion and Letters: Being Facsimile Reproductions of the Portraits in Beza’s “Icones” (1580) and in Goulard’s Edition (1581). London: The Religious Tract Society, 1906. McKinley, Mary B. “The Absent Ellipsis: The Edition and Suppression of Marie Dentière in the Sixteenth and the Nineteenth Century.” In Women Writers of the Ancien Régime: Strategies of Emancipation, ed. Colette Winn, 85–99. New York: Garland, 1997. ——. “Marot, Marguerite de Navarre et ‘l’Epistre du despourveu.’” In Clément Marot: “prince des poëtes françois” 1496–1996; Actes du colloque international de Cahors-enQuercy, 21–25 mai, 1996, ed. Gérard Defaux and Michel Simonin, 615–626. Paris: Honoré Champion, 1997. McNeil, David O. Guillaume Budé and Humanism in the Reign of Francis I. Geneva: Droz, 1975. Mégret, Jacques. “Deux impressionnes retrouvées d’Étienne Dolet.” BHR 4 (1944): 123–137. Mellinghoff-Bourgerie, Viviane. “L’échange épistolaire entre Marguerite d’Angoulême et Guillaume Briçonnet: Discours mystiques ou direction spirituelle?” In Marguerite de Navarre, 1492–1992: Actes du colloque international de Pau (1992), ed. Nicole Cazauran and James Dauphiné, 135–157. Mont-de-Marsan: Éditions InterUniversitaires, 1995.

bibliography

757

Menjoulet, J. Maximien. Chronique du diocèse et du pays d’Oloron (Béarn méridional et Soule). 2 vols. Oloron: Marque, 1864 and 1869. Mentz, Georg. Johann-Friedrich der Großmütige. 3 vols. Beitrage zur neuren Geschichte Thüringens 1. Jena: Fischer, 1903–1908. Mentzer, Raymond A., Jr. Heresy Proceedings in Languedoc, 1500–1560. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, vol. 74, part 5. Philadelphia, PA: The American Philosophical Society, 1984. Mentzer, Raymond A., Jr Mentzer, Raymond A., ed. Sin and the Calvinists: Morals Control and the Consistory in the Reformed Tradition. Sixteenth Century Essays and Studies 1994. Kirksville, Missouri: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1994. ——. “France”. In Reformation Europe: A Guide to Research II. Ed. William S. Maltby, 189–213. Reformation Guides to Research 3. St. Louis: Center for Reformation Research, 1992. Meschinet de Richemond, L. de. Marguerite d’Orléans, sœur de François I, Henry d’Albret, roi de Navarre, et leur chapelain G. Roussel à la Rochelle. Paris, 1878. Meyer, Barbara Hochstetler. “Marguerite de Navarre and the Androgynous Portrait of François Ier.” Renaissance Quarterly (1995): 287–325. Meyer, Judith Pugh. Reformation in La Rochelle: Tradition and Change in Early Modern Europe, 1500–1568. THR 298. Geneva: Droz, 1996. Meylan, Henri. “Farel et Bucer: Les dernières lettres (1550).” Musée neuchâtelois 4 (1965): 1–15. ——. “Lefèvre d’Étaples: Les thèmes théologiques de les Épitres et Évangiles.” In Colloque international de Tours (XIVe stage): L’humanisme français au début de la Renaissance, 185–192. Ed. André Stegmann. De Pétrarque à Descartes 29. Paris: J. Vrin, 1973. Michaud-Fréjaville, Françoise. “L’entrée dans sa capitale de Bourges de Marguerite d’Angoulême, duchesse de Berry.” Cahiers d’archéologie et d’histoire du Berry 96 (1989): 7–10. ——. “Marguerite d’Angoulême, reine de Navarre, duchesse de Berry, ‘laquelle a fort humainement traité ses sujets de Berry.’” In Marguerite de Navarre, 1492–1992: Actes du colloque international de Pau (1992), ed. Nicole Cazauran and James Dauphiné, 45–57. Mont-de-Marsan: Éditions InterUniversitaires, 1995. Millet, Olivier. Calvin et la dynamique de la parole: Étude de rhétorique réformée. Paris: Honoré Champion, 1992. ——, ed. Calvin et ses contemporains: Actes du colloque de Paris 1995. Cahiers d’humanisme et Renaissance 53. Geneva: Droz, 1998. ——. “Wolfgang Fabricius Capiton à Marguerite de Navarre (1528): Dédicace de In Hoseam prophetam commentarius.” In Le livre et la Réforme, ed. Rodolphe Peter and Bernard Roussel, 201–216. Bordeaux: Société des bibliophiles de Guyenne, 1987. Molinier, E. and F. Mazerolles. Inventaire des meubles du château de Pau, 1561–1562. Paris: Morgand, 1892. Montaiglon, A. de. “Antoine Augereau, natif du Poitou, d’après la liste des hérétiques ajournés par les gens du Roi (BM Soissons, ms. 189, fol. 79).” BSHPF 11 (1862): 354–358. Montagnes, B. “Un inquisiteur de Toulouse accusé d’hérésie en 1534: le dominicain Arnaud de Badet.” Revue d’histoire de l’Église de France 71 (1985): 233–251. Monter, William E. Calvin’s Geneva. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1967. ——. Judging the French Reformation: Heresy Trials by Sixteenth-Century Parlements. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999. Moore, W. G. La Réforme allemande et la littérature française: Recherches sur la notoriété de Luther en France. Publications de la Faculté des Lettres de l’Université de Strasbourg 52. Strasbourg: Publication de la Faculté des Lettres, 1930. Moreau, Brigitte. “Une impression clandestine à Paris au temps du concile de Sens, l’Epistola Luciferi.” In Le livre dans l’Europe de la Renaissance, ed. P. Aquilon et

758

bibliography

H. J. Martin, 343–359. Actes du XXVIIIe colloque international d’études humanistes de Tours. Paris: Promodis, 1988. Mours, Samuel. Les églises réformées de France. Paris: Librairie Protestante, 1958. ——. Le protestantisme en France au XVIe siècle. Paris: Librairie Protestante, 1959. Mousseaux, M. Aux sources françaises de la Réforme: La Brie protestante (Textes et faits). Paris: Librairie Protestante, 1968. Muchembled, Robert. Popular Culture and Elite Culture in France, 1400–1750. Trans. Lydia Cochrane. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1985. Muller, Ernst. “Les cantiques de Luther dans les recueils de langue Française.” BSHPF 129 (1983): 47–72. Naphy, William G. Calvin and the Consolidation of the Genevan Reformation. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1994. ——. “Catholic Perceptions of Early French Protestantism: The Heresy Trial of Baudichon de La Maisonneuve in Lyon, 1534.” French History 9 (1995): 451–477. Nicholls, David J. “France.” In The Early Reformation in Europe, ed. Andrew Pettegree, 120–141. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. ——. “Heresy and Protestantism, 1520–1542: Questions of Perception and Communication.” French History 10 (1996): 182–205. ——. “Inertia and Reform in the pre-Tridentine French Church: the Response to Protestantism in the Diocese of Rouen, 1520–1562.” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 32 (1981): 185–197. ——. “Looking for the Origins of the French Reformation.” In Power, Culture, and Religion in France, c. 1350–c. 1550, ed. Christopher Allmand, 131–144. Woodhouse, Suffolk: The Boydell Press, 1989. ——. “The Nature of Popular Heresy in France, 1520–1542.” The Historical Journal 26 (1983): 261–275. ——. “Sectarianism and the French Reformation.” Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library 70 (1988): 35–44. ——. “Social Change and Early Protestantism in France: Normandy, 1520–62.” European Studies Review 10 (1980): 279–308. ——. “The Social History of the French Reformation: Ideology, Confession and Culture.” Social History 9 (1984): 25–43. ——. “The Theatre of Martyrdom in the French Reformation.” Past and Present 121 (1988): 49–73. Nugent, Donald. Ecumenism in the Age of the Reformation: The Colloquy of Poissy. Harvard Historical Studies 89. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1974. O’Malley, John. The First Jesuits. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993. Oberman, Heiko A. Forerunners of the Reformation: The Shape of Late Medieval Thought Illustrated by Key Documents. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981 [1966]. ——. The Harvest of Medieval Theology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963; 3rd ed., Durham, NC: Labyrinth Press, 1983 [1963]. ——. Initia Calvini: The Matrix of Calvin’s Reformation. Amsterdam: Koninklijke Nederlandse Academie van Wetenschappen, 1991. ——. Luther: Man between God and the Devil. Trans. Eileen Walliser-Schwartzbart. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. Original, Luther: Mensch zwischen Gott und Teufel, Berlin: Severin und Seidler Verlag, 1982. ——. The Reformation: Roots and Ramifications. Trans. Andrew Colin Gow. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, 1994. ——. “Calvin and Farel: The Dynamics of Legitimation in Early Calvinism.” Journal of Early Modern History 2 (1998): 32–60; also Reformation and Renaissance Review (1999): 7–40. ——. “Europa afflicta: The Reformation of the Refugees.” ARG 83 (1992): 91–111. ——. “The Impact of the Reformation: Problems and Perspectives.” In Politics and Society in Reformation Europe, ed. E. I. Kouri and Tom Scott, 3–31. London: The Macmillan Press, 1987.

bibliography

759

——. “John Calvin: The mystery of his Impact.” Calvin Studies VI, 1–14. Presented at a Colloquium on Calvin Studies at Davidson College and Davidson College Presbyterian Church, Davidson, North Carolina. Ed. John H. Leith. January, 1992. ——. “Subita Conversio: The Conversion of John Calvin.” In Reformiertes Erbe. Festschrift für Gottfried W. Locher zu seinem 80 Geburtstag, 2 vols., ed. Heiko A. Oberman, Ernst Saxer, Alfred Schindler, and Heinzpeter Stucki, vol. 2, 279–295. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1993. Olive, S. Succession d’Armagnac. Procès de la maison de Lévis-Mirepoix. Toulouse: Privat, 1925. Oria, Yon. “Platonic symbolism of Marguerite d’Angoulême in the royal Courts of France and Navarre (1492–1549).” Principe de Viana 47 (1986): 319–329. Orth, Myra Dickman. “François du Moulin and the Journal of Louise de Savoie.” SCJ 13 (1982): 56–66. ——. “ ‘Madame Sainte Anne:’ the Holy Kinship, the Royal Trinity, and Louise of Savoy.” In Interpreting Cultural Symbols: Saint Anne in Late Medieval Society, ed. K. Ashley and P. Sheingorm, 199–227. Athens, Georgia: The University of Georgia Press, 1990. ——. “Manuscrits pour Marguerite.” In Marguerite de Navarre, 1492–1992: Actes du colloque international de Pau (1992), ed. Nicole Cazauran and James Dauphiné, 85–105. Mont-de-Marsan: Éditions InterUniversitaires, 1995. ——. “Radical Beauty: Marguerite de Navarre’s Illuminated Protestant Catechism and Confession.” SCJ 24 (1993): 383–427. ——. “Reconsidering Radical Beauty: Marguerite de Navarre’s Illuminated Protestant Catechism and Confession (Arsenal, MS 5096).” In Le livre évangélique en français avant Calvin: Études originales, publications d’inédits, catalogues d’éditions anciennes, ed. Jean-François Gilmont and William Kemp, 86–97. Nugae humanisticae sub signo Erasmi 4. Turnhout: Brepols, 2004. Oursel, Charles. Notes pour servir à l’histoire de la Réforme en Normandie au temps de François Ier, principalement dans le diocèse de Rouen. Mémoire de l’Académie Nationale des Sciences, Arts et Belles-Lettres de Caen (1912): 103–256. Offprint with separate pagination 1–156 at top of page, Caen: Delesque, 1913. ——. “Étude historique sur la Réforme en Normandie . . . au temps de François Ier.” Positions des thèses de l’Écoles des Chartes (1899): 105. ——. “Quelques notes sur la Réforme à Alençon et dans le diocèse de Sées au temps de François Ier.” Revue normande et percheronne (1899). Offprint, Alençon: A. Herpin, 1900. Paravy, Pierrette. De la Chrétienté romaine à la Réforme en Dauphiné: Évêques, fidèles et déviants (vers 1340–vers 1530). Collection de l’École française de Rome 183. Rome: École française de Rome; Paris: Boccard, 1993. Pariset, Jean-Daniel. Les relations entre la France et l’Allemagne au milieu du XVIe siècle. Société savante d’Alsace et des Régions de l’est, Grandes Publications 19. Strasbourg: Istra, 1981. Parker, L. S. “The ‘False Prophets’ of Lefèvre d’Étaples.” BHR 45 (1983): 473–485. Parker, T. H. L. John Calvin: A Biography. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1975. Patry, H. Les débuts de la Réforme protestante en Guyenne, 1523–1559: Arrêts du parlement. Bordeaux, 1912; also printed in Revue historique [Bordeaux] 110 (1912): 291–321. Peter, Rodolphe. “Le martyr alsacien Wolfgang Schuch.” Revue d’Alsace (1987): 91–127. ——. “Les premiers ouvrages français imprimés à Strasbourg; suite; 2e suite; et 3e suite.” L’annuaire des amis du vieux-Strasbourg (1974): 73–108; (1978): 11–75; (1980): 35–46; (1984): 17–28. ——. “La réception de Luther en France du 16e siècle.” Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuse 45 (1983): 67–89.

760

bibliography

——. “Recherches sur l’imprimeur de la Determinatio attribuée à Guillaume Farel.” In Actes du colloque Guillaume Farel: Neuchâtel, 29 septembre–1er octobre 1980, 2 vols, ed. Pierre Bartuel, Rémy Scheurer, and Richard Stauffer, 221–230. Cahiers de la Revue de théologie et de philosophie 9, 1 and 2 (1983). Geneva: Revue de la théologie et de philosophie, 1983. ——. “Strasbourg et la Réforme française vers 1525.” In Strasbourg au cœur religieux du XVIe siècle: Hommage à Lucien Febvre; Actes du colloque international de Strasbourg (25–29 mai 1975), ed. Georges Livet and Francis Rapp, 269–283. Strasbourg: Istra, 1977. Peter, Rodolphe and Bernard Roussel, eds. Le livre et la Réforme. Bordeaux: Société des bibliophiles de Guyenne, 1987. Pettegree, Andrew. Foreign Protestant Communities in Sixteenth-Century London. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986. ——. Reformation and the Culture of Persuasion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. ——, ed. The Reformation World. London: Routledge Press, 2000. ——. “Huguenot Voices: The Book and the Communication Process During the Protestant Reformation.” The Lawrence F. Brewster Lecture in History 18. Greenville, NC: Department of History, East Carolina University, 1999. Pettegree, Andrew, Alastair Duke, and Gillian Lewis, eds. Calvinism in Europe, 1540– 1620. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Pettegree, Andrew, Paul Nelles, and Philip Connor, eds. The Sixteenth-Century French Religious Book. St. Andrews Studies in Reformation History. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001. Pettegree, Andrew and Matthew Hall. “The Reformation and the Book: A Reconsideration.” Historical Journal 47 (2004): 1–24. Phillips, Margaret M. “Marguerite de Navarre et Érasme: Une reconsidération.” Revue de littérature comparée 52 (1978): 194–201. Piaget, Arthur. “Deux ‘Mémoires’ sur la Réformation à Orbe (juillet 1531).” In Études et documents inédits sur la Réformation en suisse romande, 87–111. Lausanne: Imprimerie La Concorde, 1936. Offprint from Revue de théologie et de philosophie (1933 and 1936). ——. “Épître de Pierre Caroli à François Ier.” In Documents inédits sur la Réformation dans le pays de Neuchâtel, 493–507. Neuchâtel: Archives de l’État, 1909. Picot, Émile. Les français italianisants au XVIe siècle. 2 vols. Paris: Honoré Champion, 1906. Piton, M. “L’idéal épiscopal selon les prédicateurs français de la fin du XVe siècle et du début du XVIe.” Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 61 (1966): 77–118, 393–423. Polizzotto, Lorenzo and Caroline Elam. “La unione de gigli con gigli: Two Documents on Florence, France and the Savonarolan Millenarian Tradition.” Rinascimento 2nd ser., 31 (1991): 239–259. Pollet, J. V. Itinérarium germanicum: Collection de manuscrits du XVIe siècle allemand reproduits en photocopie et conservés au CNRS / IHRT Paris. Orléans: La Source, 1986. ——. Martin Bucer: Études sur la correspondance avec de nombreux textes inédits. 2 vols. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1958. Potter, David L. A History of France, 1460–1560: The Emergence of a Nation State. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1995. ——. “Foreign Policy.” In The Reign of Henry VIII: Politics, Policy and Piety, ed. Diarmaid MacCulloch, 101–133, 238–241, 267–276. Problems in Focus Series. Houndsmill and London: MacMillan Press, 1995. ——. “Foreign Policy in the Age of the Reformation: French Involvement in the Schmalkaldic War, 1544–1547.” The Historical Journal 20 (1977): 525–544.

bibliography

761

Prenout, H. “La Réforme en Normandie et les débuts de la Réforme à l’université de Caen.” Revue historique 114 (1913): 285–305. Prestwich, Menna, ed. International Calvinism, 1541–1715. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985. Puech, Albert. La Renaissance et la Réforme à Nîmes: d’après des documents originaux inédits. Nîmes: Gervais-Bedot, 1893. Rapp, Francis. “Caractères nationaux au sien de la Chrétienté: III. La France.” Section in De la Réforme à la Réformation (1450–1530), ed. Marc Venard, 341–367. Histoire du Christianisme des origines à nos jours, vol. 7. Paris: Desclée, 1994. ——. “L’humanisme et le problème de l’église.” In Strasbourg au cœur religieux du XVIe siècle: Hommage à Lucien Febvre. Actes du colloque international de Strasbourg (25–29 mai 1975), ed. Georges Livet and Francis Rapp, 45–49. Strasbourg: Istra, 1977. Reid, Jonathan A. “Evangelical Networks in France (1520–1555): Proto-churches?” In La Réforme en France et en Italie: Contacts, Comparaisons et Contrastes, ed. Philip Benedict, Silvana Seidel-Menchi, and Alain Tallon, 105–124. Rome: École Française de Rome, 2007. Reinburg, Virginia. Popular Prayers in Late Medieval & Reformation France. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985. Renaudet, Augustin. Humanisme et Renaissance: Dante, Pétrarque, Standonck, Érasme, Lefèvre d’Étaples, Marguerite de Navarre, Rabelais, Guichardin, Giordano Bruno. Geneva, 1958. Reprint, Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1981. ——. Préréforme et humanisme à Paris pendant les premières guerres d’Italie (1494–1517). 2nd ed. Paris: Librairie d’Argences, 1953; 1st ed. Paris: Édouard Champion, 1916. Reynolds-Cornell, Régine, ed. International Colloquium Celebrating the 500th Anniversary of the Birth of Marguerite de Navarre, April 13 & 14, 1992. Birmingham, AL, 1995. Rice, Eugene F., Jr. “Humanist Aristotlianism in France.” In Humanism in France at the end of the Middle Ages and in the early Renaissance, ed. A. H. T. Levi, 132–149. Oxford: Manchester University Press / New York: Barnes & Noble, 1970. ——. “Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples and the Medieval Christian Mystics.” In Florilegium Historiale: Essays presented to Wallace K. Ferguson, ed. J. G. Rowe and W. H. Stockdale, 89–124. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1971. ——. “The Patrons of French Humanism.” In Renaissance Studies in Honor of Hans Baron, ed. A. Molho and J. A. Tedeschi, 687–702. Dekalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press, 1971. Richard, Willy. Untersuchungen zur Genesis der reformierten Kirchenterminologie der Westschweiz und Frankreichs, mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Namengebung. Romanica Helvetica 57. Bern: A. Francke, 1959. Richet, Denis. De la Réforme à la Révolution: études sur la France moderne. Paris: Aubier, 1991. Ripart, Laurent. “Les mariages de Marguerite.” In Marguerite de Navarre, 1492–1992: Actes du colloque international de Pau (1992), ed. Nicole Cazauran and James Dauphiné, 59–83. Mont-de-Marsan: Éditions InterUniversitaires, 1995. Ritter, Raymond. Les solitudes de Marguerite de Navarre (1527–1549). Paris: Honoré Champion, 1953. Robbins, Kevin C. City on the Ocean Sea: La Rochelle, 1530–1650: Urban Society, Religion, and Politics on the French Atlantic Frontier. SMRT 64. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Robert, Benjamin. “Les débuts du protestantisme à Alençon.” BSHPF 85 (1936): 365–390. Roberts, Penny. A City in Conflict: Troyes during the French Wars of Religion. Manchester and New York, 1996. Rodocanachi, E. Une protectrice de la Réforme en Italie et en France: Renée de France, duchesse de Ferrare. Paris, 1896. Reprint, Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1970.

762

bibliography

Roelker, Nancy Lyman. One King, One Faith: The Parlement of Paris and the Religious Reformations of the Sixteenth Century. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1996. ——. Queen of Navarre: Jeanne d’Albret 1528–1572. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968. ——. “The Appeal of Calvinism to French Noblewomen in the Sixteenth Century.” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 2 (1972): 391–418. ——. “The Role of Noblewomen in the French Reformation.” ARG 63 (1972): 168–195. Roger, J. M. and M. Veissière. “Le dossier du procès devant l’Officialité de Troyes de Nicolas Boivin, soupçonné d’hérésie luthérienne (9 août 1528–5 février 1529).” In Le beau XVIe siècle troyen: Aspects de la vie politique, économique, artistique, littéraire et religieuse à Troyes de 1480 à 1550, ed. P.-E. Leroy, 415–437. Troyes: Centre troyen de recherche et d’études Pierre et Nicolas Pithou, 1989. Rolland, Romain. “Le dernier procès de Louis de Berquin, 1927–1529.” Mélanges de l’École française de Rome 12 (1892): 314–325. Romier, Jean-Baptiste-Lucien. Les origines politiques des guerres de religion, d’après des documents originaux inédits. Paris: 1913–1914. Reprint in one vol., Slatkine Reprints, 1974. ——. Le royaume de Catherine de Médicis: La France à la veille des Guerres de Religion. 2 vols. Paris, 1925. Reprint in one vol., Slatkine Reprints, 1978. Rotondo, Antonio. “Atteggiamenti della vita morale italiana del Cinquecento: la pratica nicodemitica.” Rivista storica italiana 79 (1967): 991–1030. Rott, Edouard. Histoire de la représentation diplomatique de la France auprès des Cantons Suisses. 10 vols. Berne and Paris: 1900–1935. Vol. 1 (1430–1559). Paris, 1900. Rott, Jean. Correspondance de Martin Bucer: Liste alphabétique des correspondants. Association des publications de la Faculté de Théologie Protestante de l’Université des Sciences Humaines de Strasbourg, Bulletin no. 1. Strasbourg: Palais Universitaire, 1977. ——. Investigationes historicae: Églises et société au XVIe siècle: Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kirchen- und Sozialgeschichte. 2 vols. Ed. Marijn de Kroon and Marc Lienhard. Strasbourg: Oberlin, 1986. ——. “L’église des réfugiés de langue française à Strasbourg au XVIe siècle: aperçu de son histoire, en particulier de ses crises à partir de 1541.” BSHPF 122 (1976): 525–550. Rott, Jean and Olivier Millet. “Miettes historiques strasbourgeoises.” In Actes du colloque Guillaume Farel: Neuchâtel, 29 septembre–1er octobre 1980, 2 vols, ed. Pierre Bartuel, Rémy Scheurer, and Richard Stauffer, 253–277. Cahiers de la Revue de théologie et de philosophie 9, 1 and 2 (1983). Geneva: Revue de la théologie et de philosophie, 1983. Roussel, Bernard. “Bucer Exégète.” In Martin Bucer and Sixteenth-Century Europe: Actes du colloque de Strasbourg (28–31 août 1991), 2 vols., ed. Christian Krieger and Marc Lienhard, vol. 1, 39–54. SMRT 52 and 53. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1993. ——. “Claude Guilliaud, un théologal pris en flagrant délit de dissidence (1542–1548).” In Les dissidents du XVIe siècle entre l’humanisme et le catholicisme: Actes du colloque de Strasbourg (5–6 février 1982), ed. Marc Lienhard, 127–138. Bibliotheca Dissidentium, Scripta et Studia 1. Baden-Baden: Éditions Valentin Koerner, 1983. ——. “La dédicace à François Ier du De vera et falsa religione commentarius de H. Zwingli (mars 1525).” In Le livre et la Réforme, ed. Rodolphe Peter and Bernard Roussel, 187–199. Bordeaux: Société des bibliophiles de Guyenne, 1987. ——. “La formation biblique du clergé d’Autun entre 1540 et 1550: Bucer plagié, le chanoine Guilliaud censuré; Recherches nouvelles sur Claude Guilliaud (1493–1551), théologal d’Autun.” In Horizons européens de la Réforme en Alsace, ed. Marijn de Kroon and Marc Lienhard, 313–337. Strasbourg: Istra, 1980. ——. “François Lambert, Pierre Caroli, Guillaume Farel, et Jean Calvin (1530–1536).” In Calvinus Servus Christi: International Congress on Calvin Research, 25–28 August

bibliography

763

1986, ed. Wilhelm H. Neuser, 35–52. Budapest: Presseabteilung des Raday-Kollegiums, 1988. ——. “Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples et ses ‘retours aux écritures’.” In Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples (1450?–1536): Actes du colloque d’Étaples les 7 et 8 novembre 1992, ed. Jean-François Pernot, 43–54. Paris: Honoré Champion, 1995. ——. “Martin Bucer et Jacques Sadolet: La concorde possible (Automne, 1535)?” BSHPF 122 (1976): 507–524. ——. “Marguerite de Navarre: Les débuts de la Réforme et les troubles d’Alençon, 1530–1534.” Société historique et archéologique de l’Orne 105 (1986): 87–106. ——. “Les ‘Nouveaux Jérôme’ (1525–1535): les Psaumes traduits en français iuxta hebraicam veritatem.” In Les réformes enracinement socio-culturel: XXVe colloque international d’études humanistes Tours, 1er–13 juillet 1982, ed. Bernard Chevalier et Robert Sauzet, 327–335. Paris: Éditions de La Maisnie, 1985. ——. “Olivétan ‘corbeau enroué’? La traduction française d’Éphésiens 1 et Essaie 3.” In Olivétan: traducteur de la Bible; Actes de colloque Olivétan, Nyon, mai 1985, ed. A. Casalis and Bernard Roussel, 77–88 and 191–196. Paris: Cerf, 1987. ——. “Les premières dissidences religieuses du XVIe siècle à Metz (hiver 1523–été 1525).” In Les Réformes en Lorraine (1520–1620), ed. Louis Châtelier, 11–45. Centre de recherches en histoire sociale et religieuse 2. Nancy: Presses Universitaires de Nancy, 1986. ——. “Les Psaumes: le texte massorétique, les vers de Clément Marot.” In Clément Marot: “prince des poëtes françois” 1496–1996; Actes du colloque international de Cahors-en-Quercy, 21–25 mai, 1996, ed. Gérard Defaux and Michel Simonin, 435–453. Paris: Honoré Champion, 1997. ——. “Traducteurs de la Bible comme exégètes.” In Théorie et pratique de l’exégèse, ed. Francis Higman, 141–154. Geneva: Droz, 1990. Royannez, M. “L’eucharistie chez les évangéliques et les premiers réformés français.” BSHPF 125 (1979): 548–76. Ruble, Alphonse de. Antoine de Bourbon et Jeanne d’Albret, suite de “Le mariage de Jeanne d’Albret.” 4 vols. Paris: A. Labitte, 1881–1886. ——. Le mariage de Jeanne d’Albret. Paris: Adolphe Labitte, 1877. Ruchat, Abraham. Histoire de la Réformation de la Suisse (1516–1556). 6 vols. Geneva: M. M. Bousquet, 1727–1728. Ruutz-Rees, Caroline. Charles de Sainte-Marthe (1512–1555). New York: Columbia University Press, 1910. Reprint, New York: AMS Press, 1966. Sage, Pierre. “La Sainte Vierge dans l’œuvre de Marguerite de Navarre.” Bulletin de la Faculté catholique de Lyon, new ser., 16 (1954): 17–27. Sainte-Marthe, Louis-Anselme Boyer de. Histoire de l’église cathédrale de Saint-PaulTrois-Châteaux, avec une chronologie de tous les évêques qui l’ont gouvernée. Avignon: François-Sebastien Offray, 1710. Salefranque, Pierre de. Histoire de l’hérésie en Béarn. Ed. Victor-Pierre Dubarat. Bulletin de la Société des sciences, lettres et arts de Pau (1921): 39–40, 68–69, 74–80. Salmon, J. H. M. Renaissance and Revolt: Essays in the Intellectual and Social History of Early Modern France. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. ——. Society in Crisis: France in the Sixteenth Century. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1975. Sambuc, Jean. “Étude analytique du manuscrit J. 851 des Archives Nationales: Document sur le procès de Jean de Roma, inquisiteur.” BSHPF 109 (1963): 180–195. Sandret, L. “Marguerite d’Angoulême: Projets de mariage et négociations.” Revue des questions historiques 14 (1873): 205. Saulnier, V.-L. “Martin Pontus et Marguerite de Navarre: La Réforme lyonnaise et les sources de l’Heptaméron.” BHR 21 (1959): 577–594. ——. “Maurice Scève et Marguerite de Navarre: A propos de poésies apocryphes.” Bulletin de l’Association Guillaume Budé, 4th ser., 1 (1964): 111–115.

764

bibliography

——. “Le parti Du Bellay devant l’affaire de Nicolas Cop, ou de quelques fonctions du silence.” In Actes du colloque Renaissance-Classicisme du Maine (1971), 19–34. Paris: Nizet, 1975. ——. “Le soliloque françois, œuvre inédite de Jean Lucas de La Fons: Une apologie de l’alliance Turque inspirée par Marguerite de Navarre.” In Mélanges d’histoire littéraire de la Renaissance offerts à Henri Chamard, professeur honoraire à la Sorbonne, 211–225. Paris: Nizet, 1951. Sauzet, Robert. Mendiants et Réformes: Les réguliers mendiants acteurs du changement religieux dans le royaume de France, 1480–1560. Tours: Université de Tours, 1994. Schmidt, Charles. Gérard Roussel: Prédicateur de la reine Marguerite de Navarre; Mémoire, servant à l’histoire des premières tentatives faites pour introduire la Réforme en France. Strasbourg: Schmidt and Grukner, 1845. Reprint, Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1970. ——. La vie et les travaux de Jean Sturm: premier recteur du gymnase et de l’académie de Strasbourg. Strasbourg, Paris, and Leipzig, 1855. ——, ed. Les Libertins spirituels: Traités mystiques écrits dans les années 1547 à 1549. Paris: Henri Georg, 1876. ——. “Gérard Roussel, inculpé d’hérésie à Meaux, 1525.” BSHPF 10 (1861): 219–221. ——. “Le mysticisme quiétiste en France au début de la Réformation sous François Ier: G. Roussel.” BSHPF 6 (1858): 449–464. ——. “Die Unions-Versuche Franz des I. zwischen Katholischer und Protestantischer Kirche.” Zeitschrift für die Historische Theologie (1859): 25–69. Schutte, Anne Jacobson. Pier Paolo Vergerio: The Making of an Italian Reformer. THR 160. Geneva: Droz, 1977. Screech, Michael A. Clément Marot: A Renaissance Poet discovers the Gospel; Lutheranism, Fabrism and Calvinism in the Royal Courts of France and Navarre and in the Ducal Court of Ferrara. SMRT 54. Leiden: Brill, 1994. ——. L’évangélisme de Rabelais: Aspects de la satire religieuse au XVIe siècle. Études rabelaisiennes 2. Geneva: Droz, 1959. ——. Rabelais. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1979. ——. “La littérature française et la Bible.” In Le temps des Réformes et la Bible, ed. Guy Bedouelle and Bernard Roussel, 613–634. Paris: Beauchesne, 1989. Scribner, Robert. For the Sake of the Simple Folk: Popular Propaganda for the German Reformation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. Seidel, Karl Josef. Frankreich und die deutschen Protestanten: die Bemühungen um ein religiöse Konkordie und die französische Bündnispolitik in den Jahren 1534/35. Reformationsgeschichtliche Studien und Texte 102. Munster: Aschendorff, 1970. Shennan, J. H. Government and Society in France 1461–1661. New York: Barnes and Noble; London: George Allen and Unwin, 1969. Simone, Franco. The French Renaissance. London, 1969. Smith, M. C. “A Sixteenth-Century Anti-Theist.” BHR 53 (1991): 593–618. Sommers, Paula. Celestial Ladders: Readings in Marguerite de Navarre’s Poetry of Spiritual Ascent. THR 203. Geneva: Droz, 1989. ——. “Le Miroir de l’âme pécheresse Revisited: Ordered Reflections in a Biblical Mirror.” Modern Language Studies 16 (1986): 101–108. Sozzi, Lionello and V.-L. Saulnier, eds. La nouvelle française à la Renaissance. GenevaParis: Slatkine Reprints, 1981. Stauffer, Richard. La Réforme. 6th ed. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1996. ——. “Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples: Artisan ou spectateur de la Réforme?” BSHPF 113 (1967): 405–423. ——. “Strasbourg et la Réforme française vers 1525.” In Strasbourg au cœur religieux du XVIe siècle: Hommage à Lucien Febvre. Actes du colloque international de Strasbourg, 25–29 mai 1975, 269–295. Strasbourg: Istra, 1977.

bibliography

765

Stephenson, Barbara. The Power and Patronage of Marguerite de Navarre. Women and Gender in the Early Modern World. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004. Stocker, Christopher W. “The Politics of the Parlement of Paris in 1525.” French Historical Studies 8 (1973): 191–212. Strauss, Gerald. “Ideas of Reformatio and Renovatio from the Middle Ages to the Reformation.” In Handbook of European History 1400–1600: Late Middle Ages, Renaissance and Reformation, 2 vols., ed. Thomas A. Brady, Jr., Heiko A. Oberman, and James D. Tracy, vol. 2, 2–30. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994 and 1995. Stupperich, Robert and Erwin Steinborn. “Bibliographia Bucerana.” In Martin Bucers Bedeutung für die europäische Reformationsgeschichte, ed. Bornkamm Heinrich and Robert Stupperich, 37–96. Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgeschichte no. 169, 2. Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1952. Sutherland, N. M. Catherine de’ Medici and the Ancien Régime. Historical Association Publications 62. London: The Historical Association, 1966. ——. The French Secretaries of State in the Age of Catherine de’ Medici. University of London Historical Studies 10. University of London: The Athlone Press, 1962. ——. The Huguenot Struggle for Recognition. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1980. ——. “Was There an Inquisition in Reformation France?” Les Réformes enracinement socio-culturel: XXVe colloque international d’études humanistes Tours, 1er–13 juillet 1982, ed. Bernard Chevalier et Robert Sauzet, 327–335. Paris: Éditions de La Maisnie, 1985. Taber, Linda L. “Religious Dissent within the Parlement of Paris in the Mid-Sixteenth Century: A Reassessment.” French Historical Studies 16 (1990): 684–699. Tallon, Alain. Conscience nationale et sentiment religieux en France au XVIe siècle: Essai sur la vision gallicane du monde. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2000. ——. Le France et le Concile de Trente (1518–1563). Bibliothèque des écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 295. Rome: École française de Rome / Paris: Boccard, 1997. ——. “Gallicanism and Religious Pluralism in France in the Sixteenth Century.” In The Adventure of Religious Pluralism in Early Modern France: Papers from the Exeter conference, April 1999, ed. Keith Cameron et al., 15–30. Oxford: Peter Lang, 2000. Tardif, Henri et Michel Veissière. “Un autre discours synodal de Guillaume Briçonnet, évêque de Meaux (octobre 1520).” Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 60 (1976): 419–445. ——. “Un discours synodal de Guillaume Briçonnet, évêque de Meaux (13 octobre 1519).” Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 71 (1976): 91–108. Taylor, Larissa. Soldiers of Christ: Preaching in Late Medieval and Reformation France. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. Telle, Émile V. L’œuvre de Marguerite d’Angoulême, reine de Navarre, et la Querelle des Femmes. Toulouse: Lyon, 1937. Reprint, Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1969. ——. “Un document sur le mécénat de Marguerite d’Angoulême, reine de Navarre.” BHR 34 (1972): 279–271. Terrasse, Charles. François Ier: Le Roi et le règne. 3 vols. Paris: Grasset, 1943–1970. Tetel, Marcel, ed. Les visages et les voix de Marguerite de Navarre: Actes du colloque international sur Marguerite de Navarre, Duke University, 10–11 avril 1992. Paris: Klincksieck, 1995. Théon, Olivier. “Contraste et cohabitation de deux duchesses d’Alençon: Marguerite de Lorraine et Marguerite de Navarre.” Société historique et archéologique de l’Orne 112 (1993): 127–137. Tholin, G. “La ville d’Agen pendant les Guerres de Religion du XVIe siècle: Les catholiques et les protestants dans l’Agenais avant la guerre (1525–1560).” Revue de l’Agenais 14 (1887): 101–113.

766

bibliography

Thomas, Jules. Le Concordat de 1516: ses origines, son histoire au XVIe siècle. 3 vols. Paris: A. Picard, 1910. Thysell, Carol. The Pleasure of Discernment: Marguerite de Navarre as Theologian. Oxford Studies in Historical Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. ——. “Gendered virtue, vernacular theology, and the nature of authority in the Heptaméron.” SCJ 29 (1998): 39–53. Tilley, Arthur. “The literary circle of Marguerite de Navarre.” In A Miscellany of Studies presented to Leo Kastner, ed. Mary Williams and James A. de Rothschild, 518–531. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1932. Reprint, Port Washington, NY: Kennicot, 1971. Toussaints Du Plessis, Dom [Michael Chrétien]. Histoire de l’église de Meaux: avec des notes ou dissertations et les pièces justificatives. 2 vols. Paris: Julien-Michel Gandouin, 1731. Tracy, James D. “Humanists among the Scholastics: Erasmus, More, and Lefèvre d’Étaples on the Humanity of Christ.” Erasmus of Rotterdam Society Yearbook (1985): 30–51. Tricard, Annie. “La propagande évangélique en France: L’imprimeur Simon Du Bois (1525–1534).” In Aspects de la propagande religieuse, G. Berthoud et al., 1–37. THR 28. Geneva: Droz, 1957. Tuchetti, Mario. Concordia o tolleranza? François Bauduin (1520–1573) e I “Moyenneurs.” THR 200. Geneva: Droz, 1984. Tucoo-Chala, Pierre. “Pau au temps de Marguerite de Navarre.” In Marguerite de Navarre, 1492–1992: Actes du colloque international de Pau (1992), ed. Nicole Cazauran and James Dauphiné, 25–43. Mont-de-Marsan: Éditions InterUniversitaires, 1995. Tuety, A. “Marguerite de Navarre, bienfaitrice de l’Hôpital des Enfants Rouges.” Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire de Paris et de l’Île de France 43 (1916): 48–50. Valois, Noël (Joseph-Marie). Étude historique sur le conseil du roi, introduction à l’inventaire des arrêtes du conseil d’État. Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1886. Van Stam, Frans Pieter. “The Group of Meaux as First Target of Farel and Calvin’s Anti-Nicodemism.” BHR 68 (2006): 253–275. Veissière, Michel. Autour de Guillaume Briçonnet (1470–1534). Provins: Société d’Histoire et d’Archéologie, 1993. ——. L’évêque Guillaume Briçonnet (1470–1534): Contribution à la connaissance de la Réforme catholique à la veille du Concile de Trente. Provins: Société d’Histoire et d’Archéologie, 1986. ——. “La chrétienne Marguerite d’Angoulême d’après sa correspondance avec l’évêque Guillaume Briçonnet (1521–1524).” Cahiers d’archéologie et d’histoire du Berry 96 (1989): 11–16. ——. “Les citations Bibliques de Marguerite d’Angoulême dans sa Correspondance (1521–1524).” Nouvelle revue du seizième siècle 8 (1990): 111–119. ——. “Croyances et pratique religieuse à Meaux au temps de Guillaume Briçonnet.” Revue d’histoire de l’église de France 67 (1981): 55–59. ——. “Une dédicace de Jean Chéradame à Guillaume Briçonnet (1528).” BHR 53 (1991): 379–403. ——. “Une dédicace de Pierre Richard à Guillaume Briçonnet (1519).” BHR 49 (1987): 121–128. ——. “Dédicace d’une édition de Raymond Jordan à Guillaume Briçonnet (1521).” BHR 58 (1996): 141–149. ——. “Denis Briçonnet, évêque de Saint-Malo (1513–1535).” Annales de la Société d’histoire et d’archéologie de Saint-Malo (1992): 105–114. ——. “Duo sermones synodales Guillermi Briçonnet, Meldensis Episocopi (1519 et 1520).” Humanistica Lovaniensia: Journal of Neo-Latin Studies 27 (1978): 86–127.

bibliography

767

——. “Un écho à ‘Marguerite de Navarre aux temps de Briçonnet.” In Mélanges sur la littérature de la Renaissance à la mémoire de V.-L. Saulnier, 189–195. Geneva: Libraire Droz, 1984. ——. “Guillaume Briçonnet, d’après sa correspondance avec Marguerite d’Angoulême (1521–1524).” Information Historique 41 (1979): 34–37. ——. “Guillaume Briçonnet, évêque de Meaux, et la réforme de son clergé.” Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 84 (1989): 657–672. ——. “La jeune Marguerite d’Angoulême, d’après sa correspondance spirituelle avec l’évêque Guillaume Briçonnet (1521–1524).” Bulletins et Mémoires, Société archéologique et historique de la Charente (1977–1978): 51–60. ——. “La prédication dans le diocèse de Meaux au temps de Guillaume Briçonnet (1515–1534).” Les réformes enracinement socio-culturel: XXVe colloque international d’études humanistes Tours, 1er–13 juillet 1982, ed. Bernard Chevalier et Robert Sauzet, 327–335. Paris: Éditions de La Maisnie, 1985. ——. “Préréforme catholique à Angoulême et à Meaux au temps d’Antoine d’Estaing, d’après les statuts synodaux (1493–1526).” Bulletin et mémoires de la Société archéologique et historique de la Charente 4 (1989): 247–258. ——. “Le procès de Guillaume Briçonnet au Parlement de Paris en 1525.” BSHPF 130 (1984): 5–27. ——. “Le procès de Guillaume Briçonnet au Parlement de Paris en 1525 II: Quelques Textes.” BSHPF 132 (1986): 543–560. ——. “Revenus de Guillaume Briçonnet Évêque de 1489 à 1534.” Nouvelle revue du seizième siècle 2 (1984): 23–42. ——. “La vie chrétienne dans le diocèse de Meaux entre 1493 et 1526 d’après les synodes diocésains: Continuités et innovations.” Revue d’histoire de l’église de France 77 (1991): 71–81. Venard, Marc. Réforme protestante, Réforme catholique dans la province d’Avignon au XVIe siècle. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1993. ——, ed. De la Réforme à la Réformation (1450–1530). Vol. 7 in Histoire du Christianisme des origines à nos jours. Paris: Desclée, 1994. ——, ed. Le temps des confessions (1530–1620/30). Vol. 8 in Histoire du Christianisme des origines à nos jours. Paris: Desclée, 1992. ——. “L’abjuration de Claude d’Espance (1543).” In Les dissidents du XVIe siècle entre l’humanisme et le catholicisme: Actes du colloque de Strasbourg (5–6 février 1982), ed. Marc Lienhard, 111–126. Bibliotheca Dissidentium: scripta et studia 1. BadenBaden: Editions Valentin Koerner, 1983. ——. “Un catéchisme offert à Marguerite de Navarre.” BSHPF 142 (1996): 5–32. ——. “France: XVIe siècle.” Article in Dictionnaire d’histoire et de géographie ecclésiastiques. Paris: 1973. ——. “La grande cassure, 1520–1598.” In Histoire de la France religieuse, ed. Jacques le Goff and René Remond, vol. 2, 185–319. Paris: Seuil, 1988. ——. “Les ‘notes’ de l’hérésie au début du XVIe siècle, selon les visites pastorales françaises.” Les réformes enracinement socio-culturel: XXVe colloque international d’études humanistes Tours, 1er–13 juillet 1982, ed. Bernard Chevalier et Robert Sauzet, 327–335. Paris: Éditions de La Maisnie, 1985. ——. “Réforme, pré-réforme, contre-réforme . . .: Étude de vocabulaire chez les historiens récents de langue française.” In Historiographie de la Réforme, ed. Philippe Joutard, 352–365. Paris: Delachaux and Niestlé, 1977. Veyrin-Forrer, Jeanne. La lettre et le texte: Trente années de recherches sur l’histoire du livre. Collection de l’École Normale Supérieure de Jeunes Filles 34. Paris: Écoles Normale Supérieure de Jeunes Filles, 1987. Villey, Pierre. Marot et Rabelais, avec une table chronologique des œuvres de Marot. Paris: Honoré Champion, 1923.

768

bibliography

——. Recherches sur la chronologie des œuvres de Marot. Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1973 [1922]. ——. Tableau chronologique des publications de Marot. Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1973 [1920]. Vindry, Fleury. Les parlementaires français au XVIe siècle. 2 vols. Paris: Honoré Champion, 1909–1912. Vogelstein, Ingeborg Berlin. Johann Sleidan’s Commentaries: Vantage Point of a Second Generation Lutheran. New York: University of Rochester, 1986. Vose, Heather M. “Marguerite of Navarre’s theology of the Cross.” Colloquium 15 (1982): 6–16. ——. “Marguerite of Navarre: That ‘Righte English Woman.’ ” SCJ 16 (1985): 315– 333. ——. “More Light on Sixteenth-Century Evangelism: A Study in Cross and Spirit.” Journal of Religious History [Australia] 14 (1987): 256–268. ——. “A Sixteenth-Century Assessment of the French Church in the Years 1521–4 by Bishop Guillaume Briçonnet of Meaux.” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 39 (1988): 509–519. Vuilleumier, H. “Quelques pages inédites d’un réformateur trop peu connu.” Revue de théologie et de philosophie (1886): 313–339. Wanegffelen, Thierry. Ni Rome ni Genève: Des fidèles entre deux chaires en France au XVIe siècle. Bibliothèque Littéraire de la Renaissance série 3, tome 36. Paris: Honoré Champion, 1997. ——. “La controverse entre Robert Céneau et Martin Bucer sur l’eucharistie (septembre 1534–janvier 1535).” Revue d’histoire de l’église de France 77 (1991): 341–349. ——. “Un sorbonniste contre Bucer: La réfutation des idées de Martin Bucer par l’évêque d’Avranches Robert Céneau (septembre 1534).” Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuse 73 (1993): 23–37. Warnicke, Retha M. The Rise and Fall of Anne Boleyn: Family Politics at the Court of Henry VIII. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Weiss, Nathaniel. La chambre ardente: Étude sur la liberté de conscience en France sous François Ier et Henri II (1540–1550). Paris: Fischbacher, 1889. Reprint, Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1970. ——. Notes sommaires sur les débuts de la Réforme en Normandie. Rouen, 1911. ——. “Arrêt inédit de Parlement de Paris contre ‘Institution chrestienne,’ 1 July 1542.” BSHPF 33 (1884): 15–21. ——. “Comment on interrogeait et jugeait les accusés d’hérésie: Feuille d’audience de François de Fénin, d’Amiens (11 juillet 1544).” BSHPF 43 (1894): 35–38. ——. “Conférence sur Paris et la Réforme sous François Ier (1515–1547).” BSHPF 43 (1894): 242–270. ——. “Les débuts de la Réforme en France d’après quelques documents inédits, les premiers missionnaires. Pierre de Sibiville, Michel d’Arande, Aimé Maigret (1523–1524).” BSHPF 70 (1921): 197–212. ——. “Épisodes de la Réforme à Paris: Maître François Landry curé de Sainte-Croix en la Cité sous François Ier et Henri II (1540–1557).” BSHPF 37 (1888): 241–267. ——. “Étienne Lecourt, curé de Condé-sur-Sarthe, brûlé à Rouen le 11 décembre 1533.” BSHPF 36 (1887): 299–314. ——. “L’évêque Guillaume Briçonnet, François I et sa sœur Marguerite. Deux lettres inédites de février 1522. BSHPF 37 (1888): 191–203. ——. “François Lambert, d’Avignon: à propos du quatrième centenaire de la Réformation de la Hesse.” BSHPF 75 (1926): 477–486. ——. “Guillaume Farel, la dispute de Bâle, le conflit avec Erasme (1524), d’après quelques documents inédits.” BSHPF 69 (1920): 115–145. ——. “Guillaume Farel: Ses premiers travaux 1521–1524.” BSHPF 67 (1919): 179–214. ——. “Un hérétique Luthérien à Dijon en 1529.” BSHPF 55 (1906): 111–113.

bibliography

769

——. “Lettre de la sacrée Faculté de théologie de Paris à Guillaume Petit, Évêque de Troyes, Confesseur du roi, au sujet de Berquin (1523).” BSHPF 53 (1904): 209–211. ——. “La littérature de la Réforme française: Notes sur les traités de Luther en français et imprimés en France entre 1525 et 1534.” BSHPF 36 (1887): 664–671; 37 (1888): 155–163, 432–439, 500–503. ——. “Louis de Berquin, son premier procès et sa rétractation d’après quelques documents inédits (1523).” BSHPF 67 (1918): 162–183. ——. “Notes et documents sur la Réforme en Brie.” BSHPF 46 (1897): 631–647, 658–665. ——. “Paris et la Réforme sous François Ier.” BSHPF 43 (1894): 242–270. ——. “Pourquoi Mélanchton ne vint pas à Paris en 1535: d’après un texte contemporain inédit.” BSHPF 46 (1897): 311–313. ——. “Poursuites contre les hérétiques.” BSHPF 80 (1931): 502–509. ——. “Le premier traité Protestant en langue française: La Summe de l’Escripture Saincte, 1523.” BSHPF 67 (1919): 63–79. ——. “Les premières professions de foi des protestants français (1532–1547).” BSHPF 43 (1894): 57–74, 455–460. ——. “Le réformateur Aimé Maigret, le Martyr Étienne de la Forge et Jean Kleberg.” BSHPF 39 (1890): 245–269. ——. “La Réforme à Bourges au XVIe siècle.” BSHPF 53 (1904): 307–359, 474–478. ——. “La Reforme du XVIe siècle: Son caractère, ses origines et ses premières manifestations jusqu’en 1523.” BSHPF 66 (1917): 178–332. ——. “Réforme et pré-réforme: Jacques Lefèvre d’Étapes.” Revue de métaphysique et de morale 25 (1918): 647–667. ——. “Le Sommaire de Robert Estienne: Icy est brievement comprins tout ce que les livres de la Saincte Bible enseignent à tous Chrétiens, Le Sommaire primitif de Robert Estienne (1532) Haec docent sacra bibliorum scripta.” BSHPF 43 (1894): 75–79, 461–464. ——. “La Sorbonne et la librairie Parisienne: Requête des vingt-quatre libraires jurés de l’Université, au Parlement 29–30 juin 1545.” BSHPF 40 (1891): 634–638. ——. “La Sorbonne, le Parlement de Paris et les livres hérétiques de 1542 à 1546.” BSHPF 34 (1885): 19–28. ——. “Une victime du Miroir de l’âme pécheresse de Marguerite d’Angoulême, sœur de François Ier: L’imprimeur Antoine Augereau et sa famille (1534–1559).” BSHPF 42 (1893): 242–247. Wendel, François. Calvin: Source et évolution de sa pensée religieuse. 2nd ed. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1985 [1950]. Wibel, Johann Christian. Merckwürdige Lebens-Geschichte des Grafen Sigmunds von Hohenlohe. Frankfurt and Leipzig, 1748. Williams, George Huntston. The Radical Reformation. 3rd ed. Sixteenth Century Essays and Studies 15. Kirksville, Missouri: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1992 [1962]. Winn, Colette H. “‘La loi du non-parler’ dans l’Heptaméron de Marguerite de Navarre.” Romance Quarterly 33 (1986): 157–168. Wolff, Christian. “Strasbourg, cité du refuge.” In Strasbourg au cœur religieux du XVIe siècle: Hommage à Lucien Febvre. Actes du colloque international de Strasbourg, 25–29 mai 1975, ed. Georges Livet and Francis Rapp, 321–330. Strasbourg: Istra, 1977. Wuthnow, Robert. Communities of Discourse: Ideology and Social Structure in the Reformation, the Enlightenment, and European Socialism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989. Yardeni, Miriam, ed. Idéologie et propagande en France: Colloque organisé par l’Institut d’histoire et de civilisation française de l’Université de Haïfa. Paris: A. et J. Picard, 1987.

INDEX

Note: references to pages 575–640 signal appearance in Marguerite’s correspondence in Appendix A and to pages 641–722 in books related to the Navarrian Network in Appendix B. Abbadie, Bernard d’ (chancellor of Navarre), 629 absolution, 368, 534n87 Adrian VI (pope, 1522–1523), 193n41, 220n111, 324, 584 Advent sermons, 21, 79, 109, 114, 203n68, 242, 243, 264, 265, 269, 335n57, 361 Affair of the Placards. See Placards, Affair of the (1534) Agen, 21n7, 31, 94, 518n40, 707 Agrippa, Heinrich Cornelius, von Nettesheim, 139–142, 256, 279n85, 286n102, 312n186, 341, 560, 595, 643, 658, 675, 725 Aigle, 354 Ailly, Pierre d’, 156, 286, 483, 643, 655, 658 Aix, 386, 391–392, 416 Alabat, Guillaume, 690 Alamanni, Luigi, 586, 617, 671 Albany, duke of. See James V of Scotland Albenas, Jean, 610 Albi, 361 Albret, house of, 57, 58 Albret, Henri d’ (king of Navarre, 1503–1555, r. 1517–1555), 601; powers, 37, 58; dynastic ambitions, 60, 61, 95n32, 502; state-building, 67, 521–526; and Berquin, 366; helps with Henry VIII’s ‘great matter,’ 373; opposition to Cleves marriage, 502, 557; pictured following Christ with Marguerite, cover, 251n4; religious policy, 524, 525; supports Roussel, 523; Roussel dedicates work to, 526, 534n89, 545 Albret, Jeanne d’ (daughter of Marguerite): birth, 60, 601; Marguerite’s religious influence on, 13n27, 549, 551, 567; Nicolas Bourbon tutors, 250n1, 431; Cleves marriage and evangelical alliance

scheme, 502–504, 620–623; adheres to Reformed cause and memory of mother’s religion, 571 Albret, Louis d’ (bishop of Lescar), 572n9 Alcala, 648, 720 Alciato, Andrea, 75, 360, 450, 457, 553, 643, 710, 712 Aleandro, Girolamo, 143n82, 235, 325n31, 384, 385 Alençon, house of, 57, 58, 60, 93, 108, 595 Alençon, Charles d’ (duke), 587, 591, 598; marriage and childlessness with Marguerite, 57, 58, 60, 93; gifts by Francis I at accession, 89; domains, household and income, 60–98; post-Pavia disgrace, death and Marguerite’s attitude toward, 326–330; bequest to Marguerite, 329–330 Alençon, Françoise, death of, 452, 713 Alençon, 67, 603, 606; place of publication, 283, 370, 371, 428, 664–670, 673; duchy, 166, 580n54, 596; Simon Du Bois moves print shop to, 302, 370–371, 433, 462, 490n85; Marguerite and evangelicals of, 74, 75, 254, 258, 301, 302, 361, 386; preaching at, 262, 302, 381, 385; evangelical texts read, 493; hôtel-dieu, reform of, 357, 406–411, monastic reform; 187, Notre-Dame, 110; Sainct-Loys, 410; trial of the Alençon Forty (heretics) and Marguerite’s attempt to succor them, 386, 393–416; heretics from pursued after Placards, 432–434. See also Argentan; Brinon, Jean; Du Bois, Simon; Lecourt, Étienne; Lorraine, Marguerite de; Olivier, Jean; Silly, Jacques de; Sainte-Marthe, Charles de Alençon, treasurers of the duchy, 622

772

index

Alexis, Guillaume (Maistre Pierre Pathelin), 562, 671 All Saints’ Day oration (1533). See Cop, Nicolas Almenèches (abbey), 166 Amboise, Georges I d’ (cardinal archbishop of Rouen, d. 1510), 105–107, 109, 131n47, 212 Amboise, Georges II d’ (cardinal archbishop of Rouen), 212 Amboise, Michel d’, 450n5 Amboise, 24, 105, 109, 577, 615, 621 Amboise, bailli of (unnamed), 83, 444, 445, 608 Amerbach family (chiefly Boniface), 51n29, 255n10, 256n13, 342 Amiens, 79, 604, 610. See also Morand, Jean Ammonius of Alexandria, 453, 643, 658 Amyot, Jacques, 75, 231 Anabaptists, 552, 687, 702, 705 Andier, Paul, 643, 708 André, Jean (printer), 680, 682, 694, 707, 709 Aneau, Barthelemy, 457, 458, 482, 643, 686, 692, 694, 710, 712 Angier, Michel, 646 Angoulême, Charles of (duke, father of Francis I and Marguerite), 56, 57, 86 Angoulême (house of ), 57, 86, 93, 108 Angoulême (duchy), 31, 57, 88 Anjou, 321n21, 364 Anne, Saint, 60, 117, 135, 141, 144, 145, 149, 170 Anne of Brittany (queen of France), 96 Anselm, Thomas, 647 Antichrist(s), 24, 140, 273, 369n173, 550, 662; pope as, 63, 266, 273, 309n158, 474, 475; Farel’s Antichristi, 283, 284, 715, 720 Antonius, Jo., 671 Antwerp, 79, 431n143, 434; evangelical books printed in, 27, 75, 281, 283, 286, 290, 433n148, 459, 465, 652, 655–657, 660–662, 664–667, 669, 670, 672, 675, 677–679, 681, 685–687, 689–692, 697–699, 701, 706, 709 apocalyptic fervor (End Times), 32, 63, 214, 215n96 Apostles’ Creed (Credo), 28, 68, 159, 278, 287, 369, 470n31, 479, 493, 520, 571n7, 652, 653, 656, 716, 720 Aquitaine, 94, 256n13; Calvin’s visit, 536; governorship of, 58, 361n135; Marguerite’s influence in, 77–79

Arande, Michel d’ (bishop of SaintPaul-trois-Châteaux), 20–22, 50, 72–75, 80, 118, 185–188, 197–199, 203, 219, 223, 226, 228, 229, 234, 235, 242–246, 255, 258, 259, 262–264, 268, 283, 297, 298, 300–305, 325, 341, 343, 348, 358, 359, 361, 375, 404, 549, 579, 589, 590, 594, 643, 717 Ardillon, Antoine (abbot of Fontainele-Comte), 171 Aretino, Pietro, 453, 616, 643, 689, 692, 694 Argentan, 398, 581; Poor Claires (Sainte-Claire, Franciscans), 108, 111. See also Lorraine, Marguerite of Aristotle, 643, 650, 681, 707; Fabrists’ commentaries on his works, 119–122, 126, 174 Armagnac, Jean V de (Count), 93–94 Armagnac, Georges d’, 61, 96, 390, 391, 515, 601, 612, 613, 616–620, 631 Armagnac (county), 57, 58, 60, 71, 81, 89, 93–95 Arnoullet, Balthazar, 703–705 Arnoullet, Olivier, 667, 688, 696, 698, 700 Assi, François d,’ 392 Assumption of the Virgin, feast of, 168n52, 264, 269, 291 Athanasius, 120n12, 643, 681, 694, 698 Attigny, Camp d’, 579 Augereau, Antoine, 80, 428, 430, 433, 449, 464, 472n33; books printed by, 102n7, 428, 463, 472n35, 491, 641, 669, 671, 673–678 Augsburg, 43, 650, 652 Augustine, Saint, 21, 107n68, 199, 371, 430n139, 466n23, 467, 491, 522, 537n96, 539, 545, 643, 650, 660, 671, 675, 689 Aurigny, Gilles d’, 643, 712 Aussourd, Antoine, 652 Auxerre, 363; St. Germain de, 105 Ave Maria, 325n30, 456, 483, 493, 663, 683; evangelical preachers’ omission before preaching, 270n55, 288, 413, 534. See also, Mary, the Virgin Avignon, 151, 343, 507, 609; Franciscan house of, 256 Avoise, Jeanne d’, 403, 405, 407, 411, 412, 416 Aymérici, Charles, 528, 529n73 Babou, Philippe, de La Bourdaisière, 603 Babou, Jean, de La Bourdaisière, 615 Bacquenois, Nicolas, 710

index Bade, Josse (printer), 232, 371n178, 647–649, 653, 656, 658, 661–663, 665, 670–672 Badet, Arnaud de, 78, 386n16, 387–389, 391, 643, 663, 669 Badius, Conrad, 712 Baduel, Claude, 31, 41, 44–46, 50, 65n64, 72, 77, 81, 432n145, 440n166, 516–519, 549, 559, 568, 605, 610, 614, 625, 643, 689, 694, 707 Bagnères-de-Bigorre, 637 Bahuet, Simon, 410 Baïf, Lazare de, 604 Bandello, Matteo, 614, 615 Baptism, 77, 206n74, 415n97, 521n49, 535, 537n96, 670, 672, 685, 689, 704 Barbaei, J., 707 Barbou, Jean, 684, 685 Barcelona, 593, 595 Barril, Jean, 607, 643, 679 Basel, 27, 28, 46, 80, 82, 116, 134, 135n58, 151n2, 256–260, 262, 264, 267, 272, 273, 286–278, 280, 281, 283–286, 289, 341, 342, 377, 429, 438, 440, 523, 549, 558n145, 560, 590, 646, 647, 649, 651, 653, 655, 656, 661, 669, 670, 672, 677, 691, 701, 707, 709, 712, 713, 715, 720, 722 Basil, Saint, 703 Bayeux, bishopric of, 106, 158, 159. See also Canossa, Luigi di Béarn, 58, 67, 549, 559; records of, 49n27; Bordinave’s history, 53; as ideal place for evangelical reformation, 520; state-building, 521–525; customs, 532 Beaulieu, Eustorg de, 456, 460n11, 463n17, 464n19, 465, 467, 487n73, 494, 643, 663, 681, 687, 689, 701, 707, 709, 712 Bebel, Johannes, 661 Bectoz, Claude de, 612 Beda, Noël, 157, 212, 418, 647, 648, 655, 661, 663, 672, 690; organizes Faculty of Theology to oppose heresy, 118, 140, 215n98, 217, 223; pursues heretics, 117–118, 123, 214n94; 234, 359; against humanists, 100; against Briçonnet, 157–158; against Mazurier, 270n55; against Lefèvre, 134, 359, 366, 367; views Marguerite as supporter of heretics, 228, 303, 399n52; chides Louise of Savoy and demands change in royal policy, 234n159,

773

237–242; against evangelicals in Paris 1533–1534, 421, 425, 426; evangelical criticism of, 145n86, 367, 458, 477, 478; spurious Confession, 431; recall from exile, 431; criticizes lecteurs royaux, 431 Beguines and Gaultiers, 302 Belcier, François, 627 Benedictines, 19, 105, 106, 111; Alemenèches (Alençon), 107; Autun, 107; Farmoutier and Jouarre (Meaux), 165; Saint-Andoche and Saint-Jean, Autun, 107; Yerres, 106 Bénisson-Dieu, 105 Bentin, Michel, 73, 277n76, 278, 281, 342n79, 343n82 Bérault, Nicolas, 223n120, 258n20, 271n57, 653 Berion, Jacques, 711 Bern, 314n4, 317n4, 354, 440; disputation of, 394n40, 416 Bernard, Julien de, 409 Bernard, Saint, 643, 675 Bernay, Julien de, 409 Bernay, Marie de, 409 Berquin, Louis de, 10n20, 22, 394, 458, 587, 588, 643, 656, 660, 661, 664, 668–670, 695, 699, 703, 714–717; at Amiens, 79; as author and translator, 71, 282–383, 286, 292, 313n167, 367, 371n178; and Erasmus, 81n100, 313n167; heresy trials and execution, 22, 74, 18, 215–220, 224, 226n129, 235, 238, 246, 255, 356, 359, 365–367; Marguerite and court protect, 71, 221, 224, 229–230, 339–340, 355, 358, 365, 366; Briçonnet and Marguerite discuss, 223; in Marguerite’s household, 366; possible collaboration with Simon Du Bois and Gerard Roussel, 367, 369 Berry (duchy), 58, 67, 75–76, 89, 91, 95–97, 99, 106, 360, 383n7, 390, 516 Bertaud, François, 79, 420, 429, 432 Bertrand, Jean, 663 Bertrandi, Jean (president of the Parlement of Toulouse), 607, 636, 637 Besson, Jean, 27, 135, 652 Beza, Theodore, 25, 29, 51, 360, 516, 536, 547, 549, 554n135, 558, 559, 561n156, 566, 572 Bible, 162, 175, 249, 370, 452, 454, 479, 604, 645, 651, 652, 655, 656, 658, 660, 662, 664–667, 679, 684, 685, 687–692,

774

index

694, 695, 697–700, 701, 704, 705, 708–710, 712, 720; French Psalms editions, 645, 646, 650, 651, 654, 658, 660, 661, 668, 672, 676, 691, 701, 711, 716, 717–718, 721, 722; abridged French translation, 178; Lefèvre’s French translation, 21, 27, 122, 174, 175, 261, 281, 287, 370; Lefèvre’s decision to translate as aid to faith, 127, 169, 171–179, 193, 303, 307, 416, 549; Olivetan’s French translation, 259n22, 551, 554n134, 560; German translation as precedent for French, 176, 177, 269; reading as a quasi-sacrament, 216, 422, 484; Fabrists on sola scriptura, 6, 36, 62, 66, 133, 149, 284, 389, 422, 423, 527, 529–532, 545, 548; Marguerite urges Francis I to reach French NT, 333–34, 338, 356 Bibliander, Theodorus, 485n69, 714 Bienassis, René de, 705, 713 Bigorre (county), 57, 58, 637 Bigot, Guillaume, 72, 81, 391n30 Bigottier, Claude, 81 Bizet, Tristan de, 518n40, 643, 718 Blarer, Thomas and brothers, 51n29, 255n10, 430n137–138, 438n163 Blois, 74, 361, 362, 376n192, 384, 557, 584, 589, 590, 598, 602, 621, 632 Bodius, Hermann, 370, 643, 660, 662, 669, 671, 687, 713 Boethius, 643, 649 Bogard, Jacques, 113 Bohier, François, 106 Boisy, Cardinal. See Gouffier, Adrien (cardinal of Boisy) Boleyn, Anne (queen of England), 17, 62n57, 83, 166n13, 285, 431, 441, 442n17, 446, 468, 469 Boleyn, George (viscount of Rochefort), 420n109, 441, 442n17 Bombellus, R., 704 Bonhomme, Macé, 710, 712 Bonhomme, Matthieu, 705 Bonhomme, Yoland, 676 Bonnemère, Antoine, 686, 692 Bonnivet, Admrial. See Gouffier, Guillaume Bonvalot, François, 615 Bordeaux, 77, 78, 151n2, 515, 560, 561, 599, 630, 635, 663; collège of Guyenne, 561 Bordier, Henri, 392 Bordinave, Nicholas de, 53

Bossozel, Guillaume de, 65n65, 657, 663, 679, 694, 704 Bossut, Nicolas de, 71 Bouchard, André, 662 Bouchet, Jean, 450n5, 476, 595, 643, 658 Boudet, Michel (bishop of Langres), 223, 271n57, 358 Boudeville, G., 706 Boullemer, Jean, 409, 410 Boullemer, Robert, 410 Boulogne, 504, 507–511, 513 Bouquin, Pierre, 75, 76, 572 Bourbon, house of, 57, 58n48, 87 Bourbon, Antoine de, 58n48 Bourbon, Antoinette de, 609 Bourbon, Charles III de (duke, constable of France, 1490–1527), 86, 89n15, 97, 214, 233, 253, 322, 325 Bourbon, François de (M. de Saint-Pol), 603 Bourbon, Jean de (vicomte de Lavedan), 633 Bourbon, Louis de, 227n134 Bourbon, Nicolas, 31, 76, 83, 249, 250, 251, 273n69, 422n118, 430, 431, 451, 465, 466, 467, 468nn27–28, 474, 475nn40 and 43, 476, 477, 481, 488n76, 494, 643, 644, 671, 672, 680, 685–687, 705, 708, 710, 714 Bourdailles (protonotary, member of Marguerite’s household), 22, 225n125, 588 Bourgeoys, Jacques Bourges, 21, 25, 31, 58, 75, 76, 103, 151, 185, 241–247, 254, 262, 298, 302, 303n140, 360, 361, 383n7, 390, 391, 516, 572, 589, 590, 690, 716, 718; archbishopric, 72, 99, 298n128; cathedral and chapter of Saint-Étienne, 76, 242–244, 577, 585, 586, 589, 590; city council, 590, 591; religions houses of, 75, 76, 360; Saint-Ambroise, 71, 429, 453. See also Bueil, François de (archbishop of Bourges) Bourges, Pragmatic Sanction of, 19n4, 99n43, 101, 145n87, 213, 319, 669 Bouzin, Pellone, 433 Bovelles, Charles de, 120 Boyssoné, Jean de, 50, 51n29, 73, 78, 387–391, 456, 490, 643, 716 Brantôme, Pierre de Bourdeilles, 40–43, 53

index Brenz, Johannes, 55, 56, 251, 366n170, 369, 643, 660, 665, 667, 672, 717 Breslau, disputation theses of, 273n67, 721 Briçonnet, family, 92 Briçonnet (president of the Parlement of Paris), 318 Briçonnet, Denis (bishop of St-Malo), 132, 156, 158, 160, 343, 580, 599, 643, 645, 646 Briçonnet, Guillaume, père (cardinal archbishop of Reims), 132, 157 Briçonnet, Guillaume, fils (bishop of Meaux), 20–22, 39, 45, 50, 62, 73, 95, 106, 111, 116, 119, 121, 124n25, 126n31, 130, 132, 139, 141n73, 144, 151n1, 170, 174, 175, 180, 181–227, 235, 239–247, 252, 258, 261, 262, 266–271, 282, 284, 286, 287, 292n118, 299, 306, 313, 343–345, 349–352, 370, 576, 579–590, 643, 648, 650, 714, 715 Briçonnet, Michel (bishop of Nîmes), 81, 93, 132, 609, 610 Brie, 31, 171 Brie, Germain de, 643, 662, 676 Brie, Jean de, 169n55, 649, 691, 694 Brienne (Aube), 663 brigands, blaspheming, 236, 237 Brinon, family, 92 Brinon, Jean (president of the Parlement of Rouen, chancellor of Alençon, d. 1537), 44n18, 71, 211, 592 Brinon, René, 627 Briolay, Nicolas, 407 Brittany, 32, 57, 61 Brodeau, Victor, 31, 71n73, 76, 360, 452, 477n51, 482, 494, 615, 643, 690, 695, 698 Bronosse, Arnaud de, 215, 221, 226n129 Brunfels, Otto, 269, 276, 370, 643, 664, 666, 672, 695, 698, 701, 720 Bruno, Dr. See Niedbruck, Dr. Johann (Jean) von, 80n98, 263n31, 506, 507, 509n21 Bryan, Francis, 608 Bucer, Martin, 27, 42, 44, 51, 66n69, 82, 83, 139, 143, 257, 272, 277n76, 344, 370, 375, 376, 379, 381, 383, 393, 430, 437–440, 475, 516, 552, 556, 557, 567, 608–610, 643, 660, 662, 665, 669, 671, 676, 681, 687, 690, 694, 698, 701, 705, 713, 721 Buchanan, George, 704

775

Budé, Guillaume, 51n29, 144, 250n1, 258n20, 271n57, 283n96, 643, 712 Bueil, François de (archbishop of Bourges), 100, 244, 245 Buffet, Nicolas, 679, 700 Bugenhagen, Johannes, 269, 643, 661, 720 Bullinger, Heinrich, 545 Bunel, Pierre, 76 Burges, Nicolas de, 699, 700 Burgundy, 332; house of, 92, 96 Cabosse, Jean, 693, 705 Caen, 25 Cajetan, Tommaso de Vio (cardinal), 106, 118, 666 Calvarini, Prigent, 681 Calveau, Jean, 98, 221n87 Calvin, John, 2, 3, 10n20, 11–13, 18, 24, 25, 28–33, 36, 39, 43–45, 50, 51, 53, 63, 66n69, 81–84, 120, 280, 381n5, 416–418, 428, 431, 433, 457, 474, 486, 489, 491n88, 497, 516–519, 526, 565, 569, 571, 608, 614, 622, 624, 679, 687, 690, 693, 695, 698, 699, 701–702, 705, 708–713, 718, 719; Marguerite protects, 84; Calvin attacks Network as Nicodemites, 550–563; Institutes of the Christian Religion (1536; 1539/1541; 1543/1545), 66n70, 526, 535–545. See also Cop, Nicolas: All Saints’ Day oration Cambrai, Treaty of (1529), 375 Campanus, Joannis Larcherius, 666 Campen, Jan van, 643, 676, 681, 695, 698, 705 Campesis, Gerardi Morrhi, 668 Campester, Lambert, 231n151, 232, 233, 234n159, 651 Canaye, Jean, 73n86, 263, 306 Canossa, Luigi di (bishop of Bayeux), 153n6, 158–161, 193, 212, 358, 676 Cantarel, Jean, 660 canticle of Simeon, 493 Capito, Wolfgang, 51n29, 74n82, 123n25, 255n10, 256n14, 257, 344, 348, 354, 358n123, 361, 375, 556 Caracciolo, Antonio (bishop of Troyes), 61, 456, 515, 549, 563, 572, 573n11, 643, 702 Carcan, François, 286n102, 655 Carlstadt, Andreas. See Karlstadt (Carlstadt), Andreas Bodenstein von Carmelites: of Bourges, 75; of Toulouse, 105

776

index

Carnival, in Paris, 420 Caroli, Pierre, 20, 22, 25, 50, 62n57, 71, 73–75, 79, 118, 215, 218, 221, 226n129, 261, 263, 267, 268, 271, 286, 292n118, 295, 297, 303n142, 339, 344, 355, 357, 359, 367, 375n188, 385, 399n52, 403, 404, 407, 408, 411, 412, 416, 432, 453, 468, 482, 553, 554, 563, 598, 643, 655, 658, 699, 706, 717 Casaux, Hughes de, 610, 611 Cassian, 156 Castelgoffredo, 614 Castelnau, Antoine de, 443n179 Castanet, Antoine de, 440n166 Castiglione, Baldessare, 316n1, 453, 471, 643, 681, 685 Catherine de Médicis (queen of France), 572, 573, 612, 613 Caturce, Jean de, 386n16, 387–389 Caumont, François de, 630 Caumont, Geoffroy de (abbot of Uzerche), 630 Causse, Maurice, 499n3, 525n62, 534, 545–547, 718, 719 Caveiller, Estienne, 696 Caviceo, Giacomo, 643, 660 Cavillon, François, 665 Cécile, Saint, 190 celibacy, clerical, 101n50, 195, 297, 414, 486, 488, 54n122, 650 Ceneau, Robert, 157 Cervicornus, Eucharius, 668 Ceva, Boniface de, 108, 109, 646 Chabot, Charles (baron de Jarnac), 608, 609, 629, 630 Chabot, Philippe, seigneur de Brion (admiral of France), 38, 70, 326, 498, 499, 595, 596, 600, 605 Chalcographus, Thomas, 666 Champagne, 26 Champier, Symphorien, 134 Chansonnette, Claude, 279, 590, 643, 653, 666, 695 Chantilly, 585 Chapelain, Jean, 144 Chaperon, Jean, 643, 661, 685 Chappellain, François, 409 Chappellain, Vincent, 409 Chappuys, Claude, 450n5 Chappuys, François, 643, 702 Chapuys, Eustace, 41, 42 charity (theological virtue), 67, 69, 165, 167, 196, 359n127, 473, 480–482, 485–488

Charles d’Angoulême, then d’Orléans (duke, third son of Francis I), 61, 70, 359, 467 Charles II (duke of Savoy), 98, 577 Charles V (emperor of the Holy Roman Empire), 15, 41, 43, 58, 60, 68, 87, 96, 193n41, 276, 315–318, 324, 325, 335, 337n64, 347, 419, 443, 502, 504, 584, 595, 596, 598, 615 Charles VIII (king of France), 57, 86, 96 Charlotte de Valois (eldest daughter of Francis I, d. 1524): illness and death, 165n11, 328, 590; poems by Marguerite on her death, 282, 283, 716 Chasseneux, Barthélemy de, 392 Chassevent, Jean, 406, 410 Chastellain, Charles, 439n164, 520n46, 567n4, 729, 739 Chastellais, Jehan, 407 Chateaubriand, Edict of (1551), 29 Châtillon, Odet de, 467, 573n11 Chaudiere, Claude, 446n179, 713 Chaudiere, Regnault, 446n179, 653, 702, 713 Chaussard, Vve. Barnabé, 660 Chelius, Ulrich. See Geiger, Ulrich Chevallon, Claude, 232, 651 Chrestien, Guillaume, 703 Christ: as sole mediator, 66, 138, 206, 207, 292, 481, 482, 526, 529 Christocentrism, 127, 128, 136, 149, 466, 468, 481–483 Chrysostom, Saint John, 122n20, 271n57, 286, 370, 492, 545, 643, 653, 663, 667, 677, 686, 688, 691, 696–698, 700, 703–707, 709 Chupin, Pierre, 655 church fathers, 120–122, 125n29, 204 Clairac (abbey and town), 68, 77, 359, 524, 528 Claude, Saint, 394 Claude de France (queen of France), 57, 61, 62, 87, 88nn7–8, 106, 113, 145n85, 165n11, 221, 322, 328, 344n85 Clement VII (pope, 1523–1534), 15, 99n44, 324, 325, 385, 387, 388, 596, 607 Clerval, Jules-Alexandre, 52, 240n174 Cleves, Anne of, 502, 623, 624 Cleves, William of (duke), 83, 498, 502–504, 556, 557, 617, 618, 620–625 Clichtove, Josse, 118–121, 123nn24–25, 130–132, 134, 141, 142n76, 146, 157, 160, 163n32, 231n151, 232, 233,

index 274n70, 280, 367, 384n11, 643, 645–649, 651–653, 655, 658–660, 664, 672, 676, 681, 707, 720 Clouet, Mathurine, 409 Coct, Anémond de, 81, 255–259, 262n29, 264, 265, 276n69, 276–278, 281n94, 282, 283, 300, 309, 310, 312n165, 313, 643, 653, 654, 716, 720, 722 Cognac, 351, 596, 621 Cognac, League of (1526), 317, 347 Colet, Claude, 450n5, 643, 682 Coligny, Gaspard de, 321n20, 580 Colin, Germain, 450n5, 643, 682 Colin, Jacques (abbot of Saint-Ambroise, Bourges), 71, 75, 316n1, 429, 453, 605, 643, 669, 672, 680, 681, 688, 708 Colines, Simon de, 80, 172n59, 232, 233, 280, 281, 285–287, 290, 291, 648–659, 662, 667, 672, 677, 682, 686, 687, 702, 720 Colloquies: Marburg (1529), 376; Worms (1540), 556, 615; Poissy (1561), 76, 572 Cologne, 655, 658, 659, 660, 668 Colonna, Vittoria, 84, 612, 616–618, 631, 632 Communion. See Eucharist Commyn, Jehan, 402, 407, 413, 416 Compiègne, 580–582 Concordat of Bologna (1516), 19, 23, 59, 87, 97–103, 105n62, 114, 145, 153, 154n8, 158, 163, 164, 166, 168, 193, 203, 213, 216, 245, 319, 320, 361n133, 444, 669 Condé-sur-Sarthe, 393, 407, 408, 414, 602, 622 confession or penance (sacrament), 56n41, 66, 77, 112, 113, 161, 164, 210n85, 212, 251, 252, 366, 368, 479, 482, 489, 521, 531, 533, 544, 568, 657, 688 Confession of Augsburg, 382, 502 Conrard, Olivier, 680 Conventuals. See under monastic houses Cop, Nicolas, 14, 25, 79, 385, 400, 428–430, 431n142, 436–438, 472, 492, 551, 553, 605; All Saints’ Day oration (1533), 24, 380, 418, 420, 426, 428, 463, 466, 555 Corbelin, Taurin, 659 Corbie, 565, 586 Cordier, Marthurin, 77, 82, 432, 450n5, 519, 643, 706, 708, 712

777

Cornibus, Pierre de, 418n102, 421, 424n122, 426, 427n129 Corpus Christi (feast), sacrilege at Alençon, 394, 413 Corrozet, Gilles, 450n5, 454, 643, 682, 689, 691, 694, 707, 710 Coucy, Edict of (1535), 25 Coulbeuf, Frales de (abbot of Saint-André-en-Gouffern), 166 Council of Sens, 192–196, 211, 367, 387n19, 664 Council of Trent (1547–1563), 9, 155, 157, 213, 504, 568 Counter-Reformation, 417, 515 Couraud, Jean (Élie), 79, 420, 429, 543, 435 Courtecuisse, Jean, 643, 662 Courteilles, 407–409, 412, 416 Cousturier, Pierre (Sutor), 651, 656, 659, 668, 676, 661, 672, 720, 722 Couteau, Antoine, 652 Couteau, Nicolas, 660, 680, 690 Cranach, Lucas, 677, 691, 721 Cratander, Andreas, 267, 278, 283, 342, 590, 651, 653, 655, 656, 661, 672, 720, 722 Credo. See Apostles’ Creed Crépy, Treaty of (1544), 254, 504 Crespin, François, 101 Crespin, Jean, 53, 430n188, 435, 566, 712, 713 Cretin, Guillaume, 643, 660 Crinitus, Johannes, 691 Crochard, Geoffroy, 408, 409 Crom, Matthieu, 685 Cromwell, Thomas, 421, 445, 608 Crouzet, Denis, 11, 32, 215n96, 417 Crozet, Jacques, 697 Cuisery, 622 Curio, Valentin, 277 Cusa, Nicolas of, 62, 120, 130, 131 Cyprian, Saint, 12n12, 643, 696, 706, 708 Dandino, Hieronimo (papal nuncio in France), 41n14, 619–622, 626 Dandolo, Marco, 131 Dangerant, Louis, 376 Daniel brothers, 131 Daniel, François, 553 Dassy, François, 643, 660 Dauphiné, 31, 74, 256, 259, 391, 432 Dax, 256n13, 630 Delisle, Léopold, 52 Denis, Jerome, 286

778

index

Denis, Saint, 133, 204, 227n133 Denisot, Nicolas, 452, 643, 683, 713, 714 Dentière, Marie, 82, 554, 613, 643, 680, 687 Des Gois, Antoine, 691, 692, 699 Des Hazards, Hugues (bishop of Toul), 156 Des Périers, Bonaventure, 76, 452, 460n11, 468n28, 477n51, 482–484, 493n94, 494, 553, 560, 563, 610, 631, 643, 667, 679, 682, 685, 702, 705, 708 Devil, the, 273n69, 303, 373, 474, 475, 497, 498, 509n20, 574, 515, 550 Dex, Nicolas, 279n85, 353, 362 Diet of the Holy Roman Empire: Speyer (1529), 383n8; Augsburg (1530), 33, 42, 43, 82, 317n4, 376, 383, 393; Regensburg (1541), 503, 623 Dijon, 578–580 Dinteville, François de (bishop of Auxerre), 604, 604 Dinteville, Jacques de, 580 Dionysius the Areopagite. See Denis, Saint; Pseudo-Dionysius Dolet, Étienne, 31, 51n29, 73, 81, 223n120, 281, 390n29, 454, 458–460, 463, 464, 468n28, 470n31, 471, 477, 483, 488n76, 492, 494, 495, 550, 553, 554, 560, 561, 563, 625, 631, 643, 672, 676, 679, 680, 682, 685, 686, 688, 690, 691, 693–703, 707 Dominican provincial general: letter addressed to, 597 Dominicans, 413, 477n51, 617, 618, 620; inquisitors, 79, 387, 515; observants, 19, 106, 109 Döring, Christian, 721 Driart, Pierre, 52, 230, 299n131, 301n95, 307n152, 318, 321, 431n143 Du Bellay, Guillaume, seigneur de Langey, 47, 53, 70–73, 81–83, 331n49, 344, 355, 371–374, 377, 379, 381, 382, 391, 418–421, 425, 429, 435–438, 441, 445, 454, 463, 498, 499, 501, 514, 549, 552, 553, 555, 561, 566n1, 567, 573n11, 598, 617, 643 Du Bellay, Jean (cardinal bishop of Paris), 47, 70–73, 76n89, 79, 80, 82, 344, 355, 361, 371–374, 377, 379, 381, 382, 418–421, 425, 427, 429–431, 435–438, 441, 448, 454, 455, 460n11, 462, 463, 498, 499, 501, 505n15, 511, 514–515, 549, 552, 553, 555, 558n146, 561, 563, 567, 573n11, 576, 599, 600,

603–605, 607, 608, 627, 631, 643, 680, 703, 707, 711 Du Bellay, Martin, 53, 73, 76n89, 326n32 Du Bellay, René, 73, 357, 429, 549, 605 Du Blet, Antoine, 258, 259, 278, 341n77, 346n95, 405n73 Du Bois, Charles, 624 Du Bois, Michael, 689, 690, 692, 695, 702, 705, 710 Du Bois, Simon, 27, 28, 54, 55, 74, 75, 80, 169n55, 271, 281, 283–285, 291, 302n139, 355, 356, 367–370, 403, 405–407, 411, 412, 415, 428, 433, 442n171, 449, 462, 464, 490n85, 641, 649, 655, 657, 659–670, 673, 676, 716, 717 Duchemin, Nicolas, 522, 554 Duchesne, Guillaume (Quercus), 123, 140, 230, 231, 301, 363 Du Four, René, 412 Du Gort, Jean and Robert, 710, 712 Du Maine, Guillaume, 612 Du Maine, Jean, 652 Du Mesnil, Jean, 73n80, 262n29, 404 Du Mesnil, Pierre, 405n73 Dumolin, Guillaume, 279, 643, 661 Du Mont, Guillaume, 688–690, 698 Du Moulin, Antoine (Maçon), 450n5, 452, 631, 632, 643, 702 Du Moulin, François de Rochefort, 85, 108, 132, 133, 136, 144–146, 186, 259n26 Duns Scotus, 134, 485 Du Pinet, Antoine, 688, 699, 706 Du Plessis d’Argentré, Charles, 52 Duprat, Antoine (cardinal, chancellor of France, 1464–1535), 23, 38, 70, 100–102, 192, 19n42, 223, 224, 228n136, 229, 236, 265, 267, 312, 317, 320, 331, 332n50, 356, 361–363, 372, 384, 387n19, 394n40, 400, 418, 419, 425n126, 429, 431, 440, 578, 588, 598 Du Pré, Galliot, 649, 650, 660, 671, 678, 682, 688, 696 Dupré, Jean, 694 Du Saix, Antoine, 449n4, 450n5, 476, 488 Duval, Jean, 410 ecclesiology, 20, 69, 146, 166, 167, 199 Eck, Johannes, 648 Edme, Marguerite, 403, 410

index Eleanor of Portugal (queen of France, 1498–1558, r. 1530–1547), 70, 443, 601 Elizabeth of Schönau, 131 End Times. See apocalyptic fervor England, 76, 424, 431, 599, 608, 622; imperial ambassador in, Chapuys, 41; and emperor, 316n3, 324; diplomatic relations with France, 70, 73, 315, 312, 322–324, 347, 373; and Schmalkaldic League, 41n15; Marguerite and French evangelical party’s attempt to broker religious alliance between Schmalkaldic League, France, and, 43, 68, 83–84, 380, 436, 441, 475, 498, 504–506, 509–514 Enfants rouges (orphanage), 80 Enoch, Louis, 632 Entragues, Anne Malet de Graville, baroness d’, 62, 71, 344 Episcopius, Nicolaus, 677 Erard, Simone, 403 Erasmus, Desiderius, 11n24, 19, 23, 24, 27, 46, 51, 71, 74, 118, 122–125, 129, 133n56, 139, 140, 143, 158, 215–217, 219, 221, 22n117, 254, 255n10, 257n17, 262n29, 269, 276, 279, 282, 283, 286, 292, 305, 313n167, 341, 342, 359, 366, 367, 369, 370, 384, 429, 457, 468, 476, 543, 545, 592, 593, 596, 597, 643, 646, 647, 649, 653, 656, 659, 661, 662, 664, 666, 668, 669, 671, 672, 676, 677, 682, 685, 688, 692, 693, 695, 696, 699, 703, 708, 709, 711, 715, 716, 720, 722 Escaudain, 581 Eskrich, Pierre, 643, 712 Espence, Claude d’, 536, 643, 708, 709 Essai (convent), 109 Estaing, Antoine d’ (bishop of Angoulême), 156 Estaing, François d’ (bishop of Rodez), 156 Estates of Béarn, 522 Estates of Normandy, 166, 212, 234 Estauge, Jacques, 707, 709, 713 Este, Ercole d’ (duke of Ferrara), 84, 626 Estienne, Henri, 645–649 Estienne, Robert, 29, 80, 280, 281, 285, 287, 54, 643, 684, 691, 700, 702, 703, 709 Étampes, Anne d’Heilly, dame de Pisseleu, duchess d’ (1508–1580), 38, 59n51, 70, 71, 372n179, 438n162, 445, 469, 499, 506–512, 514, 691–692

779

Eucharist (the Lord’s Supper, Communion), 24, 25, 30, 31, 42, 66, 77, 125n29, 200, 216n99, 261, 264, 353, 370n176, 422, 423, 432, 439, 476, 483, 484, 513, 521n49, 526, 530, 534, 535, 537, 540–542, 545–548, 570, 647, 658, 660, 677, 679, 697, 721, 722. See also Mass Eusebius of Cesarea, 453, 643, 669, 672, 677 evangelicals, French, 1–7; 18–28, 31, 80–81, 151, 254, 256n13, 257, 259, 262–265, 267, 277, 281, 296, 297; scholarly debate about character, 8–11, 417n101, 570; this study’s definition as part of European evangelical (Protestant) movement, 35–38; external image and self– identity, 38–47, 115–19, 273; Marguerite as champion, 58–64; their program, 65–69. See also Fabrists; heresy/heretics; Navarrian Network; Sons of Apollo and individual members excommunication, 159n21, 194, 238, 244, 266, 362n143; papal, 389, 437 Faber, Nicolaus, 672 Fabrists, 35, 39, 73n79, 111, 115, 119–126; 127, 130, 131–133, 139, 140, 144, 146, 149, 152, 163, 164, 167, 170, 171, 172, 174, 186, 187, 197, 210n85, 247, 255, 267, 272, 280, 304, 305, 351, 352 Faculty of Theology (Sorbonne). See University of Paris faith (theological virtue), evangelicals on ‘life-giving faith’ (foi vive) and justification by faith alone (sola fides): 26, 28, 31, 46, 62, 66, 67, 69 107, 125n29, 172, 179, 206, 210, 219n107, 249, 250, 273, 289, 292, 296, 297, 346, 359n127, 368, 389, 414, 421n115, 422, 423, 464, 481, 473, 478, 480, 486, 488, 490, 521n49, 526, 529, 530, 533, 537, 539, 540, 543, 547–550, 565 Farel, Guillaume, 10n20, 13, 20–22, 28, 43, 45, 50, 51, 71, 73, 74, 79–80, 82, 152, 204, 205, 244, 252, 264, 268–274, 277–278, 281–288, 291, 295, 299, 305, 307–308, 310–311, 341, 348–350, 359, 362, 370, 374, 414, 550, 552–554, 556, 560, 561, 565, 571, 607, 624, 643, 653, 656, 657, 663–665, 667, 670, 672, 677,

780

index

679, 680, 685, 686, 688, 690, 691, 697, 699, 700, 703, 704, 706, 712, 715, 716, 718–720; as early member of Fabrists, 115–117, 137, 138, 14; Farel parts ways with Network, 352–355 Farge, James K., 19n3, 38n4, 52, 118n7, 215n98, 231n147, 265n44, 321n109, 424n122 Farmoutiers, 165 Farnese, Alessandro (cardinal), 606, 613, 615, 618–620, 626, 633, 634 Faucher, Denis, 611, 612 Feau, Guillaume (Izernay), 49, 71, 92, 610, 633, 634 Febvre, Lucien, 1–11, 53, 112, 124, 125, 182n3, 566 Ferrara, duke of. See Este, Ercole d’ Ferrero, Filiberto (papal nuncio in France), 615 Ferretti, Emilio, 632 Fezandat, Michel, 714 Field of the Cloth of Gold. Fillon, Artus (bishop of Senlis), 156, 159, 211–213, 223, 225, 587, 588 Fisher, John (bishop of Rochester), 133n65, 134, 135n59, 231n151, 232, 647, 651 Fitzwilliam, Sir William, 322, 323 Flaminio, Marcantonio, 643, 705, 709 Florence, 347, 654; gonfaloniere of, 598 Foix, André de, 592 Foix, Jacques de (bishop of Oloron, then Lescar), 522–525 Foix, Odet de, 337, 593, 594 Foix (county), 58 Fontaine, Charles, 452, 454–456, 467, 468, 487n74, 491–494, 643, 682, 683, 700, 706–708, 718 Fontainebleau, 585, 589, 598, 600–602, 610, 619, 620, 634 Fontevrault, 105, 106 Foolish War (La guerre folle), 86 Fossetier, Julien, 643, 670 Foucault, Antoine, 700 Foucher, Jean, 688, 691, 692 French church. See Gallican church Francis I (r. 1515–1547), 4, 15, 19, 22–25, 29, 30, 38, 40, 48, 51, 53, 56–63, 68, 71–74, 78, 80–84, 85–107, 140, 158, 165, 166, 177, 182, 193, 194, 196, 198, 200, 211–213, 244–230, 235, 246, 253, 254, 277, 312–317, 322–325, 328, 330–335, 339, 342–345, 350–354, 359, 362–366, 371–377, 379–380, 383, 384,

387, 392, 395, 397–400, 419, 425, 426, 429–432, 436–439, 441, 443, 462, 467, 468, 471, 474, 475, 491, 497, 501–514, 551, 552, 556, 557, 566, 568–571, 576, 589, 591–597, 601–603, 606–610, 612, 613, 621, 623, 625–627, 630, 632, 637, 679, 700, 718, 721 Francis of Assisi, Saint, 108, 188n21, 191, 332n51, 338 Franciscans, 19, 108, 234, 264n39, 277, 300, 341, 421, 423, 426, 477n51, 485, 562; at Issoudun, 40n30; at Meaux, 162, 163, 168n21, 190, 193n40, 205, 246, 267n48, 299, 341n77, 352; at Sées, 412; Conventual, 108, 118; Observant, 108, 118, 256; Poor Claires of Argentan, 108, 111; reformed Conventual Franciscans (sub ministris), 108, 109; spirituality, 107. See also, Nuptiis, Pierre de; Lorraine, Marguerite de Frankfurt, 76 Frederic, Captain of the king’s archers, 224n123, 229n142, 230 Frederick of Portugal (bishop of Siguenza), 595 free will, 208, 389 Fregoso, Cesare, 614 Frellon, François and Jean, 685, 687, 696, 702, 706, 708 French Church. See Gallican Church Froben, Hieronymus, 677 Froben, Johann, 281, 590, 646, 653, 669, 720, 722 Froment, Antoine, 554 Froschauer, Christoph, 653, 658, 681 Frotté, Jean, 49n27, 71n72, 92, 615–617, 620 Fumée, Antoine, 30, 563 Gacy, Jean, 210n85, 234, 235n161, 313, 653, 679 Gadon, Jean, 73n80 Gaigny, Jean de (Johannes Gagnaeus), 643, 662, 695 Galbert, Aimé, 258 Gallican church, 19, 87, 98, 100, 103–104, 157, 158, 160, 161, 189, 213, 309, 319, 344n86; hopes for reform of, 44, 195, 350n99, 371, 501n7, 565, 573n11; Gallicanism, definition of, 19n4; Gallican opposition to royal control, 98–102, 220n111 Garupha, Joanne Antonius, 671, 672

index Gasne, René, 517 Gaultherot, Vivant, 652, 686, 706 Gaultiers, 302 Geiger, Ulrich, Dr. (Chelius), 72, 736 Gelderland (duchy), 502 Geneva, 25, 31, 37, 44, 53, 76n90, 80, 83, 256, 416, 456, 495, 552, 554, 560, 607, 613, 616, 624, 650, 653, 671, 674, 679, 680, 683, 685–695, 697–710, 712, 713, 716, 719; Franciscan Gacy early critic of reformation movement, 210n85, 234; and Calvin’s influence on French Reformation, 12, 28–33, 36, 44–45, 418, 536, 550; Genevan perspective on French evangelicals, 566–568; printing there, 280, 353n110; French refugees at, 29, 32, 440n166, 560–56; Pocquet at, 557, 143; Marot at 561, 563; Marot on, 562, 563 George of Trebizond, 677 Geraldini, 79, 381n5, 431, 554, 555n137. See also Roussel, Gérard Gerson, Jean (1363–1429), 130, 132, 154–156, 159–161, 169, 272, 643, 645, 646 Ghogreve, Johann (chancellor of Jülich), 621, 624 Giberti, Gian Matteo (bishop of Verona), 163n32, 324, 325n29, 385n31 Gien, 589 Gilles, Nicolas, 688, 692 Girard, Jean, 553, 683, 685–688, 693–695, 698–703, 705–710, 712, 713, 719 Girot, Jean, 465 Glareanus. See Loriti, Heinrich Glotelet, Nicole, 450n5, 643, 682 Gouffier, Adrien (cardinal of Boisy), 106 Gouffier, Guillaume (Admiral Bonnivet), 99, 576, 584 Gourmont, Gilles de, 645 Gourmont, Jean de, 195n46, 219n106, 646, 647, 649, 650 Gouveia, António de, 450n5, 560 grace: network members on: 65n64, 67, 73n, 81, 125n29, 128, 129, 147, 191, 196, 200n62, 201, 203, 206–209, 225, 267n104, 292, 296, 336–338, 430, 480–482, 485, 489n78, 491, 529, 537, 540n103, 541n106, 542n108, 543n112 Graindorge, Paul, 408 Gramont, Charles de, 361n135, 628 Gramont, Gabriel de, 361n135, 549

781

Grand Conseil, 44n18, 52, 80, 94, 224, 229n142, 237, 259, 319, 361n133, 388, 400n54, 515 Grandval, Marc de, 134, 647 Granlon, Robert, 714 Gratian, 156 Grave, Jean de, 706 Great Schism, 19 Greban, Simon, 644, 690 Greek: language, 132, 158, 173, 175, 178, 360, 370, 471, 632; New Testament, 122, 129 Greenwich, 631 Gregory of Naziansus, 703 Gregory the Great, 133, 156 Grenoble, 21, 80, 151n1, 254, 256, 257, 263–265, 280, 296–300, 305, 306, 313, 432, 654 Grimm, S., 650 Gringore, Pierre, 644, 653, 654, 606 Grocario, Arnauld-Guillaume de, 648 Gromors, Pierre, 663, 684 Groslot, Jacques (bailli of Orleans), 259, 321n22, 353n107 Gruelle, Michelle, 410 Gryphe, François, 676 Gryphe, Sébastien, 610, 672, 676, 680, 685–689, 693, 694 Guédon, Rémy, 708 Guelques, Guillaume de, 685 Gueroult, Guillaume, 644, 709 Guibert, Jean (hermit of Livry), 54, 73n80, 74, 216, 221, 355–357, 367, 368, 662 Guillard, Louis (bishop of Tournai and Chartres), 132, 139, 156 Guingant, Julien, 703 Guise (family). See Lorraine (family) Guise, Charles de (cardinal of Lorraine, 1525–1574), 635 Guise, Henri de (duke, 1550–1588), 104 Guise, Jean de (cardinal of Lorraine, 1498–1550), 70, 468, 518n40, 573n11, 605, 636 Guise, Louis de (cardinal of Guise, 1555–1588), 104 Guyenne. See Aquitaine Gymnicus, Johannes, 691 Habert, François, 693 Hagenau, 647, 660, 665 Halewijn, Joris van (Georges d’), 649, 668 Haller, Berthold, 394, 414n92, 416

782

index

Hamelin, Philibert, 713 Hamm, Berndt, 479, 481 Hangest, Jérôme de, 65n65, 227, 232–234, 239, 427n129, 651, 656, 661, 663–665, 670, 679, 683 Haudebourg, Jacques, 713 Hebrew: language, 122, 134, 173, 175; chair of at Bourges, 76 Hedio, Caspar, 82, 381, 650 Heller, Henry, 5n11, 6, 12, 13, 32, 125n29, 136n67, 151n1, 152, 166n44, 174n67, 182nn 3 and 5, 185n11, 188n21, 198n58, 220n111, 364n143, 306n150, 558n145, 576, 717 Henault, Jean, 412 Henri de Valois, le dauphin. See Henry II Henry II (king of France, 1547–1559), 29, 45, 48, 57, 58n48, 61, 63, 69, 70, 372n179, 467, 501, 505n15, 512, 568, 571, 572, 626, 633–635, 708 Henry IV (king of France, 1589–1610), 57, 58n48, 61, 104, 424 Henry VIII (king of England, 1509–1547), 51, 502, 600, 618, 631, 632; allegiance with the Empire, 316–317; and Marguerite, 41, 42, 98, 322, 323, 441–446, 497–501, 503, 505–513; as author, 231, 232, 651; evangelical alliance and, 15, 68, 71, 72, 83, 497–501, 503–513; “Great Matter” and split with Rome, 373, 380, 436–439; peace with France 1525, 316–318 Hérard, François, 403 Hérault, Christophe, 79, 80, 430–435 heresy/heretics (“Lutherans” in France), 20–22, 35, 38, 39, 151, 219, 363, 364, 384, 385, 425–427, 429, 524, 555n137; evangelicals reject name Lutheran, 298, 349, 427; royal response to, 363, 429, 441; Lutheran books in France, 238–239, 256, 279, 303, 304; Grenoble, 300; Paris, College of Cardinal Lemoine, 299; Toulouse, 517; Turlupins, 234–235, “Lutherans of Meaux,” 22, 69, 151, 206, 218, 299, 306, 356. See also Berquin, Louis de; Alençon: Alençon Forty; Peasant’s War; persecution Hermes Trismegistus, 121 Herminjard, A.J., 50, 270n55, 348n95, 581, 592, 719

Héroët, Antoine (bishop of Digne, 1552–1568), 452, 455, 457, 458, 466, 644, 696, 708 Herwagen, Johann, 654, 721 Hess, Johannes, 273n68, 721 Hesse, Philip, landgrave of, 42n26, 288, 375, 376, 503, 605, 606, 620, 621 Hesshus, Tilemann (Simon), 269, 276, 721 Heyden, Gaspar (Sebald) van der, 277n76, 286, 644, 659, 661, 668, 673, 679, 685, 686, 688, 703 Higman, Francis, 27, 35n1, 37n3, 53n35, 54, 274n71, 275n73, 449, 450, 457, 490n85, 493n95, 534, 546, 547, 642 Hilaire Courtois, 663 Hildegard of Bingen, Saint, 131 Hittorp, Gottfried, 659, 668 Hohenlohe, Sigismund von (dean of Cathedral Chapter of Strasbourg), 374, 375, 556, 592–594, 596, 598; collaboration with Marguerite, 46n23, 82, 251n4, 342–347 Holbein, Hans, 250n1, 431, 453, 644, 684, 685, 696, 706 Holy Spirit, 127–129, 142, 148, 178, 183n5, 308, 310, 333, 416, 533 hope (theological virtue), 250, 251, 479, 488–493 hôtel-dieu: of Alençon, 406–411; of Meaux, 166; of Mortaigne, 406, 599, 602; of Senlis, 212. See also poor relief; Enfants rouges Houdebourg, Martin, 411 Howard, Thomas (duke of Norfolk, 1473–1554), 56n42, 420n109, 441–443 Huet, Charles, 450n5, 452, 455, 644, 680–683, 689 Hugues de Saint-Cher, 644, 645 Hugh of St. Victor, Saint, 62, 130, 132 Hugwald, Ulrich, 261, 117, 268, 342 humanism, biblical/Christian, 14, 18n2, 19–22, 115–121, 126, 133n56, 134, 139, 151, 157–160, 170, 179 Hundred Years War, 18 Huron, Robert, 410 Hutten, Ulrich von, 143, 219n106, 276n74, 644, 647, 715, 720 Hyllaire, Laurent, 664 Ignatius, Saint, 121 Ignatius of Loyola, Saint, 2, 417

index Illyricus, Thomas, 657, 660 Imbart de la Tour, Pierre, 1, 2, 8–11, 35n1, 37n3, 118n7, 215n98, 382n7, 566 indulgences, 18, 21, 54, 118, 160, 389, 414, 420, 521, 528, 533, 534, 544n115, 674, 717, 719; at Le Puy, 297; at Meaux, 168, 210, 266, 325, 716; papal Jubilee, 22, 266, 282, 297, 305, 325, 716 Irenaeus, Saint, 147, 545 Issoudun, 39, 622 Issoudun (abbey), 360 Jacobi, Jérôme, 654, 657 James V of Scotland (duke of Albany), 322, 604, 622 Jamet, Lyon, 433, 450n5, 561 Janot, Denis, 631, 663, 681–682, 685, 691–693, 696, 700, 704 Jarcy, 105 Jerome, Saint, 21, 121, 191, 282, 644, 717 Jerome of Prague, 43 Jesuits. See Society of Jesus; Ignatius of Loyola John Frederick, elector of Saxony (1532–1547), 78, 83, 437, 445, 502, 503, 623, 624, 628 John of Damascus, Saint, 121 John of Genoa, Saint, 156 Jordan, Raymond, 169n55, 644, 648, 714 Josse, Guillaume, 230, 231 Josse, “Jean” (likely Guillaume), 318 Jouarre (abbey), 165, 169n56 Jourda, Pierre, 1–7, 42n16, 51n31, 112n80, 181n3, 399n50, 401n55, 498n3, 568, 575–577 Juliotte, Jean, 410 Junta, Philippus, Heritors of, 654 Jurie, Antoine, 709 Juste, François, 81, 464, 601, 668, 674, 678, 680, 682, 684, 688, 697, 703 justification, 33, 62, 66, 125n29, 292, 296, 308n156, 389, 414; Boyssoné’s doctrine of, 389; Briconnet’s, 206–207; Lecourt’s, 404; Lefèvre’s, 125n29, 129; Luther’s 129, 206, 208; Luther’s opinion of Erasmus’s and Lefèvre’s doctrines of, 129n40; Aimé Meigret’s, 296; Roussel’s, 423, 526, 530, 547; Sons of Apollo’s, 480–481 Kappel War, Second (1531), 376, 480–481, 526, 530, 547

783

Karlstadt (Carlstadt), Andreas Bodenstein von, 195, 218n106, 644, 650 Kemp, William, 279n84, 287n104, 428, 462 Kerbriat, Jean, 667 Kerver, Thielman, 676 Kléberg, Jean (Johannes), 433 Knobloch, Johann, 654, 659, 661, 687, 690, 695, 697 Koeln, Wigand, 653, 679, 680 Kolb, Franz, 394n40, 414n92, 416 Köpfel, Wolfgang, 657, 721 La Barre, Jean de, 592, 595, 597 La Bénestaie, monsieur de, 633 La Borderie, Bertrande de, 452, 455, 457, 458, 466, 644, 696, 707, 708 La Bourdaisière, 599, 603, 615 La Chaise Dieu (abbey), 626 La Chassagne, Geoffroy de, 628 Lactantius, 156 La Coudraie, François de, 452, 456, 644, 701 La Fayette, Aimée de, 623, 633 La Forge, Étienne de ( fils), 437 La Forge, Étienne de ( père), 65n64, 79, 433, 434, 552, 553, 607 La Fosse, René de, 403, 411 La Haye, Antoine de, 692 La Haye, Simon de (Du Bois), 711 Laignel, Antoine, 402, 407, 413, 416 Laigues, Étienne de (seigneur de Beauvais), 73 La Marck, de (family), 353 La Marck, Robert II de, 71 Lambert, François, 10, 81, 255–259, 269, 273n69, 276–279, 282–283, 300, 312, 341, 644, 654, 657, 659, 661, 665, 688, 699, 706, 715, 721 La Motte, Jean de (La Mothe or Moussy), 411, 412 La Motte-Fouquet, Marguerite de, 411 Landa, Paul J., 526, 535n90, 545 Landry, François, 76n80, 80, 562, 563, 644, 704 Lange, Jean, 73n80, 280n92, 421 Langelier, Arnoul, 681, 690, 696 Langelier, Charles, 690, 704, 705, 707, 708, 712 Languedoc, 31, 241n176, 389n23 La Planche, Seigneur de, 71, 507–510, 622, 624 La Pommeraye, Gilles de, 337, 601

784

index

La Porte, Hugues de, 684 La Porte, Maurice de, 676 La Rochelle, 78, 627; city council of, 630 Łaski, Jan, 342, 592 Last Supper, 24, 541 La Trémoïlle, François de (vicomte de Thouars), 605, 607, 613, 622 La Trémoïlle, Georges de (Jonvelle), 584, 600 Lausanne, 519; Protestant Academy, 45, 519 Laval, Anne de (madame de La Trémoïlle), 628 La Vaugyuon, monsieur de, 629 La Verrière, Jean de, 450n5 Lawrence, Saint, 246 Le Blond, Jean, 76n89, 450n5, 681, 712 Le Clerc, Jean, 26, 73n80, 216, 266, 289n85, 307, 310, 352 Le Clerc, Pierre, 416 Le Comte de La Croix, Jean, 73n80, 170, 171, 272 Le Converd, Jean, 719 Le Coq, Jean, 659 Lecourt, Étienne (curé of Condésur-Sarthe), 10n20, 385, 393, 394, 399n52, 405–408, 411, 413–416, 559, 602 Le Coustellier, Guillaume, 405 lecteurs royaux, 158, 431 Lectore, 94 Ledevin (Ledevyn), François, 402 Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques, 3, 8, 14, 19–23, 27, 36, 39, 45, 46, 50, 60, 61, 65, 72–75, 79, 111, 115–169, 180, 181–190, 193, 196–200, 203, 206, 210, 211, 215–223, 235, 238–242, 246, 252–312, 334, 339, 341–351, 355–359, 366, 367, 370, 375, 384, 385, 392, 415–416, 422, 478, 480, 548, 554, 567, 588, 589, 594, 644, 645–648, 650–652, 654, 655, 657, 658, 661, 662, 664–672, 675, 676, 679, 684, 685, 687, 688, 690–692, 694, 696–698, 701, 704, 705, 709, 711, 715; biblical commentaries, 19–20, 116–117, 121, 127–128, 134, 138, 153n6, 171–172, 175, 189, 193, 196–197, 216, 217, 235, 281, 292, 309, 213, 342. See also Bible Legoux, Georgine, 409 Legoux, Isaac, 409 Le Maigre, Jean, 413 Le Maistre, Claude, 644, 705, 708, 709 Le Mans: Dominicans of, 106, 577

Le Masuyer, Philibert, 100–102, 578 Lempereur, Martin, as Navarrian Network printer, 75, 272n65, 281–291, 390, 442; works printed by, 433n148, 655–657, 660–662, 664–670, 672, 675, 677–679, 691, 692; by Vve., 685, 686, 687, 692; Jean Girard of Geneva uses name as false address, 687 Le Noir, Philippe, 595, 653, 658 Lent, 113, 562; Lenten fast, 113; Francis I’s observance during captivity, 333, 338; Lenten sermons, evangelical, 262, 298; d’Arande’s in Alençon, 21; d’Arande’s in Bourges, 21, 243, 244, 262n29; Artus Fillon’s in Senlis, 211n89; Guillaume Petit’s in 1523, 219; Roussel’s in Paris 1533 and 1534, 24, 79, 380, 386, 392, 417, 420–425, 429–431, 462, 520; Pierre de Sébiville’s in Lyon and Grenoble, 264, 267, Pierre de Sébiville’s in Sisteron, 265, 267n97 Leo X (pope, 1513–1521), 19, 97, 98, 100, 105–107, 166 Le Pelletier, Jean, 403, 408n83, 409–411 Le Pelletier, Léonard, 410 Le Picard, François, 425 Le Preux, Poncet, 668 Le Puy-de-Dôme (Auvergne), 21, 214n95, 297; Our Lady of (Black Virgin), 298 Le Rentif (Rétif ), Jean, 420, 432 Lerida, 594 Lescagne, Tristan de, 483n62, 681, 691, 709 Lescar, bishop of: administrative role in Béarn, 522, 523; cathedral canons, 522 Lesclencher, Michel, 649 L’Espine, Jean de, 76, 572 Le Sueur, Nicolas, 45, 47, 65n64, 73n80, 263, 266n53, 270n55, 280–284, 296, 305, 312n104, 644, 715 L’Héritier, Nicolas, 704 Lhomme, Jean, 683, 700, 704 L’Hullier, Jean, 160 Libertines. See Spiritual Libertines Libisch, Kaspar, 721 Liege, Jean, 644, 688 Liesvelt, Jacques de, 701 Liesvelt, Jean de, 687 Lille, Pierre de, 171, 644, 649 Linus, 704 Livry (abbey), 131

index Lizet, Pierre (president of the Parlement of Paris), 119n9, 215–218, 352, 418, 610, 714 Loe, Jean, 701, 709 London, French church of, 76 Longis, Jean, 681, 688, 692 Longueil, Christophe de, 654, 673, 691 Longueval, Nicolas de Bossut, seigneur de, 71, 506–511, 514 Longwy, Claude de (cardinal bishop of Mâcon), 358 Lonicer, Johannes, 269, 276, 279n86, 721 Lopez de Zuñiga, Didacus (Jacques Lopez Zuñiga), 648, 650 Loquet, Jean, 76 Lord’s Prayer, 28, 68, 159, 232, 276n55, 278n83, 282, 286–288, 413, 479, 493, 521, 530–534, 652, 666 Loriti, Heinrich (Glareanus), 122–124, 136–139, 143, 170 Lorraine (family), 61, 279n85, 301, 349, 571 Lorraine (cardinal). See Guise, Jean de (cardinal of Lorraine, 1498–1550) Lorraine, Antoine de (duke, 1489–1544), 300, 301, 318 Lorraine, Marguerite de, 108–112, 581 Lorraine, 353; Peasants’ War in interpreted as a Lutheran invasion, 22, 69, 300–303 Lorus, Damianus, 671 Lotrian, Alain, 655, 663, 689, 699, 701, 702 Lotter, Melchoir, the younger, 721 Louis XII (king of France, 1498–1515), 57, 86, 87, 90, 93, 96, 104–106 Louise of Savoy (mother of Francis I, regent, 1476–1531), 38, 52, 98, 229, 322, 323, 462, 580, 590, 591, 593, 594, 597, 599, 600, 601, 603, 613, 668; as mother and part of Royal Trinity, 56–58, 85–92, 97, 114; as regent, 22, 58, 69, 94, 101, 228, 235, 241, 317, 321, 331, 351, 363; blames Charles d’Alençon for loss at Pavia, 327; praises Marguerite for saving Francis I, 336–337; piety, 104, 107–109, 113, 136, 144–146, 197, 325, 333, 372; supposedly favors evangelicals, 46; supports monastic reform, 106; Marguerite and Briçonnet attempt to influence in favor of reform, 187–192, 198–199, 201–205, 225–227; allows then

785

supports persecution, 215–220, 235–240, 244, 265, 268, 319–320, 384, 399; depicted as mère Sotte, 228; and Zwingli, 277, 312 love: courtly, 486–487; divine, 112, 486, 487; God’s/Christ’s, 200, 240, 486, 487, 517, 518; of God, 168, 173, 188, 334; Neoplatonic, 486; poets of, 458, 466, 487, 488; profane, 112, 486, 487; Roussel on God’s, 530, 541; theological virtue, brotherly, 69, 172, 201, 249, 473, 479, 486, 487, 517. See also charity Lovy, René-Jacques, 152 Lucian of Samostata, 286n102, 453, 601, 644, 668 Ludolphe of Saxony, 156 Lull, Ramón, 121, 126, 130, 131, 144n84 Luquet, Jehan, 683 Luther, Martin, 8, 20–28, 42, 51, 54, 63, 71, 81, 82, 103, 115–118, 123–129, 134, 139, 140–143, 146, 151, 170, 176, 177, 181, 199, 203, 206, 208, 241, 250–252, 255–258, 261, 269, 272–282, 286–288, 292, 297–300, 302–305, 313, 316, 359, 360, 366, 370, 371, 388, 389, 392, 429, 440, 451, 463, 472, 474, 503, 514, 526, 536, 556, 587, 615, 644, 649, 650, 653, 654, 656–659, 661, 663, 665, 667–670, 672, 677, 686, 688–691, 697, 700, 704, 706–708, 715–717, 720, 721; books refuting him, 39, 231, 232, 367, 651, 652, 659, 663, 664, 666, 676; the German Hercules, 315 “Lutherans” (in France). See heresy/ heretics Luxemburg (cardinal), 105 Lutzenburg, Bernard, 252, 654 Luxemburg (duchy), 61 Lyon, 29, 276, 318, 324, 361, 433, 488n7, 467, 560–562, 577, 583, 584, 586, 591, 592, 594, 595, 601, 607, 609–611, 616, 617, 622, 625, 631, 632, 646, 652, 655, 658, 660, 662–664, 666–669, 671–672, 674, 676, 678–712, 716; evangelicals in, 21, 27, 31, 80–81, 151, 254, 256n13, 257–259, 262–265, 267, 277, 281, 296–297; Marguerite and, 312, 482; printing in, 283, 427n, 462 Lyra, Nicolas of, 128n39, 134 Mabon, Paul, 402, 407, 410, 434 Macrin, Jean Salmon. See Salmon, Jean (dit Macrin)

786

index

Macault, Antoine, 644, 788 Mâcon, 254, 264, 358 Madrid, 330, 332, 337, 346, 350, 593–595; miraculous healing of Francis in, 335–335, 357 Madrid, Treaty of, 253, 317, 332, 346, 600 Maheu, Didier, 232, 652, 660 Maillard, Olivier, 104, 108, 109, 154, 155 Mailly, Africain de, 703 Malestroit, mademoiselle de, demoiselle de Pontcallec, 636 Malingre, Matthieu, 82, 362, 673, 676, 679, 691, 706, 707 Mallard, Olivier, 680, 682, 686 Mangin, Nicolas, 73n80, 286 Mantova, Benedetto da, 643, 705, 709 Manutius, Aldus, 690 Marburg, 621, 625 Marcourt, Antoine, 128, 353n110, 431, 432, 666, 673, 677, 693, 697, 706, 708, 709 Mareschal, Eustache, 607, 679 Margaret of Austria (Savoy), regent of the Netherlands (1480–1530), 317, 592 Marguerite d’Angoulême (duchess d’Alençon, then queen of Navarre, 1492–1549, r. 1527–1549), 575–638, 642–644, 668, 673, 684, 679, 686, 688, 700, 704, 706–711, 713, 714, 715, 716, 717, 721; scholarship on her religion, 1–8; profile as champion of evangelicals, 56–64; early powers and role as part of the Royal Trinity, 85–103; early religious outlook, 107–114; promotes Meaux reform as model of national renewal, 181–247; fosters the Navarrian Network, 249–314; saves Francis I and protects network, 315–377; protects and promotes the evangelical cause in the 1530s, 379–446; leading light and patron of the Sons of Apollo, 447–495; works for evangelical political alliance in 1540s, 497–516; promotes local evangelical reform, 516–525; reputation for protecting heretics, 39, 234–238, 302, 303, 313, 372, 373 Marguerite de France, daughter of Francis I, 359 Marignano, battle of (1515), 98 Marillac, Charles de, 51, 622–624

Marlorat, Augustin, 76, 80n97 Marnef, Enguilbert and Jean de, 674, 686, 697, 709 Marot, Clément, 3, 25, 27, 31, 62n57, 73, 76, 84, 251n4, 358–362, 366, 391n30, 418, 422, 427, 428, 432, 433, 447–495, 530, 554, 561–563, 566n1, 579, 581, 641–644, 661, 662, 667, 668, 670, 673, 674, 678, 679, 681–684, 686–692, 694, 695, 697, 698, 702, 704 Marot, Jean, 85, 88 marriage, clerical, 195, 439 Martial, F., 711 Martyr, Peter, 705, 713 Mary, the Virgin, 60n53, 183n4, 209n34, 364, 481, 522, 661; and St. Anne, 135; devotion to, 21, 55, 310, 476n44, 532; Lefèvre’s criticism of cult, 137; evangelicals’ critique, 264, 288, 363n146, 414, 479, 482–484, 534; iconoclasm against, 137n65, 305, 364–365; 394; feast day of the Visitation, 210; Black Virgin of Le Puy, 21, 297, 298 Mary Magdalene, Saint: controversy over, 117–119, 123n24, 133–135, 141–147, 170, 186, 186; treatises on, 650 Mass, 132, 155, 161, 533, 670, 677, 722; heals Francis I, 335–336; obit, 212; criticism of or attacks on, 24, 261, 413–414, 420; response to attacks on, 65n65; evangelicals’ transformation of, 31, 369–270, 423, 439, 484n64, 534, 543, 546, 568; abstaining from, 30. See also Eucharist Massaut, Jean-Pierre, 133n56, 146–148 Matignon, Joachim de, 606 Mauburne, Jean, 657 Mauléon, 522, 528–531 Maximilian I (emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, 1493–1519), 87 Maynier, Berrangier, 93 Mazurier, Martial, 20, 21n7, 73n80, 118, 123n24, 152, 189, 215, 218, 221, 240, 261, 267, 268, 270, 282, 292n118, 295, 297, 300, 301, 367, 644, 712, 715 Meaux, Noël de, 409 Meaux, 578–587, 589, 647, 649, 650, 655, 714, 716, 717; Farmoutier and Jouarre, 165 ; Trinitarians, 166; See also Briçonnet, Guillaume (fils); Franciscans: at Meaux; hôtel-dieu; indulgences; heresy/heretics:

index “Lutherans of Meaux;” monastic houses; placards Mechthild of Hackeborn, Saint, 131 Medici, Giuliano de’ (duke of Nemours), 97 Médicis, Catherine de. See Catherine de Médicis Médicis, Étienne, 297, 298, 300 Meigret, Aimé, 10n20, 80, 81, 118, 262–267, 277, 280, 292n115, 293n120, 296–300, 318, 325, 331, 358, 376, 450n5, 644, 654 Meigret, Lambert, 376 Meigret, Laurent, 554 Melanchthon, André, 77, 628 Melanchthon, Philipp, 25, 26, 31, 44, 45, 51, 65n65, 77, 78, 82, 118, 215, 216, 221, 261, 262, 275n71, 276, 286, 288, 289, 376, 379–381, 424, 427, 435–440, 445, 463, 491n38, 504, 516, 519, 550, 556, 604, 605, 615, 626, 628, 629, 644, 649, 657, 677, 691, 693, 705, 713, 722 Mentzer, Raymond, 385, 387, 389 merits, 125n29, 206–208, 297, 480 Merlin, Guillaume, 712 Merlin, Jacques, 123n23 Metz, 349, 354, 706; evangelicals there, 279, 282, 307, 342n79, 362, 416, 715; iconoclasm in, 26, 307 Meyer, Sebastien, 688, 699, 706 Michaux, Aegidius, 552, 559n150 Michel, Jean, 685, 687, 689–691, 693, 697, 704 Middelburch, Henry Pierre de, 698 Mierdman, Stephan, 712 Milan, duke of. See Sforza, Francesco Milan, 43, 68, 87, 94, 322, 324, 325, 440, 501, 505n15, 513 Minimes, 118. See also Paule, François de Moderne, Jacques, 655, 663, 666, 691 Mollon, Barthélemy, 430 Mombaer, Jean, 130, 131, 157 monastic houses/monasticism: election under Pragmatic Sanction, 101; Luther’s critique, 77, 81, 313, 488, 715, 721; reform in France, 104–107, 115, 194; Artus Fillon’s reform in Senlis, 212; Fabrists’ support for reform, 126; Francis I’s support for reform, 69, 107, 114; reform in Meaux, 126, 127, 130–132. See also Observant movement monks, 111, 127; criticism as corrupt, 31, 113, 145, 190, 476, 484; as barrier to the gospel, 143

787

Monluc, Jean de (bishop of Valence and Die), 77, 549, 572, 573, 619, 620, 672 Monner, Basilius, 422, 427 Montalembert, Adrien de, 663 Mont-de-Marsan, 617, 629, 632, 634 Monter, William, 363nn144 and 146, 386, 389 Montmorency, Anne de (1493–1567), 38, 211, 321, 331, 340, 471, 580, 584–587, 589–591, 593–604, 608–610, 634–636; as advisor to Francis I, 70; correspondence as source, 51, 576; criticizes dauphin François, 442; Du Bellay’s relations with, 371n179; fall from royal favor, 372n179, 502n10; Henry II favors, 372n179; leads conservatives at court, 23, 40, 70, 400, 419, 429, 431n142, 440, 501; Marguerite’s early support for, 321; Marguerite’s curries favor of, 361, 384, 426; Marot curries favor of, 468n28; negotiates peace of Madrid, 332, 337n64; promotes peace with Habsburg, 443, 506 Montmorency, François de (monsieur de La Rochepot), 609 Montmorency, Guillaume de, 88n8, 111–113, 577, 580, 584 Montpellier, 595 Montrocher, Guy de, 156, 159 Moore, W.G., 54, 313n167 Morand, Jean, 79, 555n137, 644, 717 More, Thomas. See Thomas More, Saint More, Treaty of the (1525), 317 Morelet du Museau, Claude, 258, 271n57 Morelet du Museau, Jean, 73, 223n120, 258n20 Morhart, Ulrich, 656 Morin, Guy, 682, 688, 693, 703 Morin, Jean, 610, 682, 693–695 Mortaigne-au-Perche: hôtel-dieu, 394, 406, 599, 602; town council, 598–599 Mortières (Molières), Jacques de, 227n135, 483n62, 652 Mosaic law, 206, 208 Moulins, 622 Musaeus, 644, 694 Musculus, Wolfgang, 712 Myconius, Oswald, 269, 722 mysticism: Briçonnet’s 62, 126n31, 151n1, 181, 207, 225; evangelicals’, 3; Jewish, 134; Lefèvre’s, 120n14, 172, 181–183; Marguerite’s, 6, 53, 144n84,

788

index

330; ‘mystical quietism’ of Roussel, 311, 535, 547; texts, 121, 122, 125, 126, 131. See also Cusa, Nicolas of; Pseudo-Dyonisius Nachtigall, Ottomarus, 644, 658 Navarre, Marie de, 625 Navarre (kingdom), 37; Basse-, 37, 58; Spanish, 86, 502, 516. See also Béarn Navarrian Network: definition of, 35–38; contemporary and self-image, 38–47; sources for, 47–56, membership and program, 56–89; role of Bible reading in program, 68, 114, 129, 177, 210, 211, 305; preaching based on Bible, 261, 269, 271. See also individual member and Fabrists; Sons of Apollo Nemours, duke de. See Medici, Giuliano de’ Nemours, madame de. See Savoie, Philiberte de Neo-Latin poets, 430. See also Bourbon, Nicolas; Boyssoné, Jean de; Du Bellay, Jean; Salmon, Jean (dit Macrin); Visagier, Jean Neoplatonism, 466, 487; Neoplatonic love, 486, 487 Nérac, 76, 77, 81, 384, 517, 555, 557, 621, 626, 627 Nesen, Wilhelm, 137n64, 644, 648, 649 Netherlands, the Spanish, 80, 92, 433n148. See also Margaret of Austria Netter, Thomas, 231–233, 652, 671 Nettesheim, Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa von. See Agrippa, Heinrich Cornelius, von Nettesheim Neuchâtel, 28, 280n89, 353, 431, 624, 672, 674, 676, 677, 679 Neufchâteau, Nicolas de, 73n80 Nicodemites, 30, 570; Calvin’s views of, 30, 418, 497, 526, 536, 547, 550–554, 558, 560, 563, 566, 568, 702, 705, 713; religious sensibility, 368, 547. See also Roussel, Gerard; Viret, Pierre Niedbruck, Dr. Johann (Jean) von, 263n31 Nîmes, 609, 625; evangelicals in, 77, 81; heretical preaching at, 386n17; town council, 516, 609. See also, Baduel, Claude; Briçonnet, Michel; University of Nîmes Norfolk, duke of. See Howard, Thomas

Normandie, Laurant de, 29, 713 Normandy, 88, 241, 393; evangelicals in 26, 302, 343, 393n39. See also Estates of Normandy Nourry, Claude, “le prince,” 595, 652, 656, 662, 667, 671, 692 Noyon, 613 Nuptiis, Pierre de, 389, 390 Nycastre, cardinal of, 613 Observant movement, 19, 104–109, 112, 114, 131n47; Dominicans, 106; Franciscans, 108, 109, 118, 256; Benedictines, 105, 107n68 Odos, château, 57 Oecolampadius, Johannes, 46, 82, 117, 139, 257–261, 268–274, 311, 342, 348, 384, 556, 650, 653, 691, 722 Olivétan, Pierre Robert, 27, 259n22, 452, 454, 456, 551, 560, 644, 673, 679, 683, 687, 694, 698 Olivier, Antoine (d. 1571), 572 Olivier, François (1497–1560), 71, 357, 507, 571, 601, 623, 636, 703 Olivier, Jean, 357, 358 Olivier, Pierre, 646 Oloron, cathedral chapter of, 520n44; bishop of, administrative duties, 522; bishopric, 55, 77, 521–522. See also Roussel, Gerard Oraison, Antoine d’, 282, 283, 360n132, 587, 644, 716 Oraison, Antoine Honoré d’, seigneur de Cadenet, 360n132, 392 Orleans, 25, 31, 554; bailliage, 321n22n, 590n 591; diocese, 195n49. See also Groslot, Jacques Orléans, Madelene d’, 165 Orthe, protonotary of, 627 Orvieto, 616, 617 Ovid, 644, 678 Pac, Matthieu, 78, 390 Paget, William, 498, 499, 505–513, 631, 632 Palier, Jean, 706 Paola, Francesco da. See Paule, François de, Saint Pathelin, Maistre Pierre. See Alexis, Guillaume Papillon, Almanque, 455, 456, 466, 468, 644, 683, 689, 701, 706, 708 Papillon, Antoine, 80, 81, 258, 260, 277, 282, 283, 309, 313, 488n77, 644, 715, 721

index Paris, Nicole, 702 Paris: general references, 25, 52, 81, 109, 131, 162–163, 195, 224n123, 226–233, 236, 275–276, 325n30, 447, 462, 562–563, 577, 578, 582–584, 587–590, 596, 602, 604, 605, 607, 610, 614, 617–631, 645, 696, 698–712, 715, 717, 718, 720, 722; city council, 318–319, 327; Chambre des comptes, 95; Fabrists in, 20, 115, 119, 121–124, 139–142, 153, 170; Marguerite, evangelicals, and, 33, 40, 72–73, 79–80, 122–123, 143, 151, 189, 205, 254–255, 257–260, 263–264, 266–267, 271, 284, 298, 308, 331, 348–349, 354, 358, 361, 374, 379, 382, 417, 480, 573; Calvin in, 24, 35, 552–555; popular reactions to heresy, 228–230, 241, 299–303, 327, 340; official responses to heresy, 75, 213, 214, 227–228, 318, 363–364, 379, 432–435; Simon Du Bois in, 74, 75, 281, 285–290; Sainte-Croix, 80, 105; SaintJean-en-Grève, 301n107; Saint-Paul, 263; Saint-Victor (abbey), 230, 515. See also Cop, Nicolas; Du Bellay, Jean; Landry, François; Placards, Affair of the; Roussel, Gerard Parlement of Aix, 391, 392 Parlement of Bordeaux, 44, 94, 435n154, 524, 607, 610, 611, 618, 621, 626–630 Parlement of Paris, 165, 166, 280, 300n134, 318, 335, 576, 659; Berquin trials, 79, 215, 218, 220n112, 224, 34n70, 358; collaboration with Paris Faculty of Theology and conservatives against heresy, 21, 38, 47, 118n7, 215, 220, 226n129, 237, 264, 299, 366; Gallicanism of 19n4, 98–100, 106; juges délégués, 265, 266, 275n71; Marguerite and, 78, 100–102, 106, 184, 321n22, 399, 340, 399, 577, 578, 590, 599, 604–606, 610; measures against heresy, 20, 22, 69, 78, 215, 219, 220, 227, 253, 264, 266–268, 271–275, 292, 299, 303, 304, 318, 351, 366, 420, 432, 433, 518n40; opposition to Concordat of Bologna, 19, 98, 99; opposition to royal policies, 22, 23, 69, 100, 101, 315, 318–320, 335, 336, 230, 237, 238; Placards persecution, 432–436 Parlement of Rouen, 71, 211, 393

789

Parlement of Toulouse, 94, 386, 388. See also Bertrandi, Jean; Melanchthon, André Parmanteri, Michel, 684 Pasquier, Estienne, 644, 705, 708 Pau, 608, 618, 634–637 Paul III (pope, 1534–1549), 15, 437, 600, 613, 614, 616, 618, 619, 622, 626, 629, 630, 632, 635 Paul, the Apostle, 176, 239; feast day of, 88 Paule, François de (Francesco da Paola), Saint, founder of the Minimes, 107–109 Pauvan, Jacques, 73n79, 266, 282, 292n118, 352, 358, 367, 717 Pavia, battle of (1525), 22, 33, 59, 60, 69, 70, 101, 253, 300, 315, 317, 318, 320, 321, 325, 328, 331, 338, 342, 591 Payen, Thibault, 672, 692, 684, 697, 699, 711 Pays de Vaud, 82, 456 Peasants’ War, German: in Lorraine, reported as Lutheran invasion of France, 22, 69, 300, 318 Pellicier, Guillaume (bishop of Montpellier), 51, 517, 618, 619 Pellikan, Konrad, 117, 259, 268, 269, 342, 722 penance. See confession Peraudi, Guillaume, 156 Périgord, 618 persecution, 20–25, 29–30, 45–46, 69, 75, 82, 142, 170, 179, 246, 251–252, 258, 293–294, 310–311, 350n99, 379, 383–386, 390–397, 401–402, 448, 457–470, 474, 485, 489–491, 515, 517, 535, 551, 563, 567–572, 694 Perussel, François, 76, 572 Pesseliere, Pierre, 698 Petit, Guillaume (bishop of Troyes, 1519–1527, and Senlis, 1527–1636), 72, 99, 103, 106, 132, 144, 156, 157, 199, 203, 219, 220, 223, 227, 659, 678, 686 Petit, Jean (printer), 65n65, 128n30, 232, 233, 271n57, 651–654, 658, 659, 661–663, 665, 668, 670, 679, 683, 699, 722 Petit, Macé, wife of, 409 Petit, Michel, 407–409 Petit, Nicolas (printer), 690 Petit, Pierre, 271n57 Petrarch, Francesco: sonnets, 471, 644, 689

790

index

Petri, Adam, 649, 720, 722 Pfalz-Neuburg, Otto-Henrich von, 625 Philip, prince of Spain, 502 Philippe, Martin and Pierre, 712 Phocylides, 704 Piedmont, 68, 70 Pierrepont, Jean de, 160 Piloys, Jacques, sieur de Montigny, 405, 412 Pinelle, Louis, 132, 156, 157, 160, 161, 163n32 Pirckheimer, Willibald, 134, 140n71 Pisseleu, Charles de, 518n40 Pizzighettone, 591 Placards, Affair of the (1534), 14, 23–25, 30, 33, 40, 75, 79–81, 217, 220n111, 379–382, 385, 403, 417, 420, 430n138, 431n142, 432–437, 440, 449, 453, 458, 460, 498, 515, 551; Marguerite blames conservatives for, 366n159 placards, 99n44, 303n142, 426; papal Jubilee indulgence placards at Meaux, 22, 266, 305, 717 Plato, 190, 471, 644, 667 Pocquet, Antoine, 83, 550, 552, 553, 557, 559, 563, 568, 644, 716 Poey, Martin de, 524 Poggio, Giovanni (papal nuncio in Spain), 613 Poictevin, Jean, 644, 710 Poissy, Colloquy of (1561), 76, 572 Poitiers, 31, 151, 171n58, 255, 536n93, 686, 697, 709, 710 Poitiers, Diane de, 635–637 Polignac, Anne de (madame de La Rochefoucault), 635, 636 Polycarp, Saint, 121, 147 Pompadour, Geoffroy de, 628 Poncet, 232, 668, 714 Poncher, Étienne (archbishop of Sens), 156, 157, 211, 223, 322 Poncher, François (bishop of Paris), 195n46, 217n102, 224, 238, 271n58, 373 Pons, Jacques de, 609 poor relief, 67, 69, 111, 166, 359, 406, 416, 520, 528, 529 pope (papacy, Rome, Roman church), 19–20, 27, 41, 42, 63, 68, 70–73, 76, 83, 84, 97–100, 104–106, 109, 113, 129, 131n47, 143, 146–148, 154, 168, 173 193, 194, 198, 199, 220n111, 235, 253, 254, 265, 266, 306, 316, 317, 324, 325, 347, 361, 362,

372, 373, 379, 380, 385, 388–389, 395, 415, 436–440, 461, 474–476, 497–501, 506–509, 516, 525n63, 533, 550, 554, 562, 563, 608, 616. See also individual popes Pot, Philippe, 265, 266 Poullain, Valérand, 552, 712 Poussart, Jean, 601 Poyet, Guillaume (chancellor of France, 1473–1548), 70, 499n5, 501 Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges, 19n4, 99n43, 101, 145n87, 213, 319, 669 Pratin, Louis, 683 Pratis, Galeoto a, 663 Prato, Felix de, 644, 667 predestination, 208n81, 287n104, 455, 466–467, 489–492, 658, 716 Prével, Bertaud, 408 Prévost, Jean, 266, 320, 341, 342 Prierias, Sylvester Mazzolini, 129 printers, printing. See under names of individual printers and cities Prosper of Aquitaine, Saint, 430, 644, 674, 678 Prouille, 635 Provence, 31 providence, 291, 489, 491, 492 Pruss, Johann, 647, 661 Pruss, Johann, Jr., 659 Pseudo-Augustine, 660 Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, 62, 120, 121, 124n25, 130, 131, 181, 183, 204, 207 Pseudo-Seneca (Lucius Annaeus), 644, 662 Quentell, Petrus, 655, 658–660 Quillet, Mathurin, 412 Quintin of Hainaut, 551, 553, 568 Rabelais, François, 3, 11, 31, 51n29, 73, 171n58, 391n30, 417–418, 427n130, 454, 457, 460, 463, 464, 473–477, 487–495, 550, 553–554, 560–563; Gargantua (the character), 412, 473, 491 Radon, 403, 409, 411 Raemond, Florimond de, 53, 439, 495, 536n93, 546n122, 567–570, 604, 608, 611, 628, 716 Raince, Nicolas, 73, 607 Ramminger, Melchior, 652 Raulin, Jean, 130, 131, 154, 155 Réal, Jehan, 704

index Rébuffe, Pierre de, 75, 360 reform, episcopal, 14, 55, 130n44, 152–163, 174, 211, 523, 565 Reformed Church/churches of France, 12, 13, 17, 22, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 76, 152, 386n17, 407, 495, 549–551, 565, 567, 570, 572 Reformed party (during Wars of Religion), 61 Régin, Claude (bishop of Oloron), 57n45, 572 Regnault, François, 232, 646, 652, 653, 660, 666, 668 Regnault, Jacques, 700 Rély, Jean, 157 Renaud, Jacques de, 45n20, 519 Renée de France, duchess of Ferrara, 61, 84, 96, 554, 555, 608, 611, 612, 631 Resch, Conrad, 80, 278, 341, 648, 650 Reuchlin, Johannes, 134, 139, 140 Reuchlin affair, 118, 123, 134, 140 Rhau-Grunenberg, Johann, 721 Rhegius, Urbanus, 424, 427, 605, 644, 696, 706, 708 Rhellican, Jacob, 276 Rhenanus, Beatus, 51n29, 123n25, 169, 170, 276 Rhode, Franciscus, 665 Ribérac, madame de, 611 Ribérac, mademoiselle de, 611 Richard, Jean, 697 Richard, Pierre, 163 Richard of St. Victor, Saint, 130, 131 Ricouart, Pierre, 657 Rieux, Denis, 363n146, 364 Rivery, Adam, 713 Robert, Petit, 83 Robert, Simon, 82 Robert of Uzès, 131 Robertet, Florimond, 336, 337, 461, 491n89, 580, 594, 662, 670 Roch, Jean, 232, 652 Rochette, Louis de, 78, 387n19, 388 Rodez, 58 Roffet, Estienne, 678, 685, 688, 691, 692, 695 Roffet, Pierre, 661, 670 Rohan, François de (archbishop of Lyon), 161 Rohan-Guéméné, Louis V de, 636 Roigny, Jean de, 673, 675 Rolland, Guillaume, 408, 414 Roma, Jean de, 391n31, 392

791

Rome (city), 106, 600, 604, 613, 616, 620, 633, 634, 635, 711, 713. See also pope Romorantin, 578 Ronsard, Pierre de, 644, 714 Rouen, 21, 29, 31, 76, 106, 231, 405, 646, 683–685, 700, 704, 711, 712 Rouillé, Guillaume, 632, 710, 711 Roussel, Antoine, 120 Roussel, Gérard, 11, 14, 20–25, 31, 39, 45–50, 53, 55, 65–67, 71–79, 82, 115–117, 120, 122, 138, 152, 174, 175, 177, 183, 187, 217, 250–252, 257, 259, 262–274, 277, 279, 284, 288–292, 296–299, 304–312, 339–345, 348–354, 359–362, 368–370, 380, 384, 385, 388, 390, 392, 413, 414, 416, 417–436, 439, 462, 515, 550–559, 566–568, 571–573, 581, 594, 604, 607, 614, 644, 649, 650, 667, 681, 696, 703, 707, 715–719; preaching in Paris, 24, 55, 348, 380, 419–426; reform and doctrine as bishop of Oloron, 516–550. See also Geraldini Roussel, Pierre, 607 Royal Trinity, 58, 85–88, 92, 108, 114, 201, 202, 225, 326, 333n52, 601 Royalist party (during Wars of Religion), 61, 158, 318, 571 Rozel, Charles, 644, 707 Ruel, Jean, 407, 409 Ruelle, Jean, 705, 708 Rufinus of Aquileia, 453, 644, 680 Ruysbroeck, Jean, 130, 131 Sabbio (brothers), 671, 672 Sabbio, P. Nicolini da, 671 Sacramentarians, 25, 35, 432, 434, 435, 441, 515, 539, 540, 547 Sadoleto, Jacopo, 156, 163n32, 552, 644, 654, 673, 686, 690, 691 Sagon, François, 450n5, 460–461, 476–478, 631, 704; and Marguerite, 461n12 Sagon-Marot querelle, 450n5, 460–461, 466, 477n51; tracts, 452, 455, 681–684, 689 Saint-Nicolas-du-Port, 654, 657 Saint-Ambroise (abbey, Bourges), 75 Saint-André, Jacques d’Albon de, 656 Saint-Calais (convent), 105 Saint-Cloud, 610 Saint-Denys, Vve. Jean, 670, 672 Sainte-Baume, shrine of, 133

792

index

Sainte-Lucie, Pierre de, 679, 681, 683, 686, 700, 701 Sainte-Marthe, Charles de, 644, 691, 700, 701, 713, 714; Marguerite’s secretary and funeral oration, 63, 520n46, 570; pursued for heresy at Lyon, 81; as major evangelical poet, 31, 76, 450n5, 452, 464n19, 465, 469, 473, 478–490, 494; disputes with other poets, 494n99 Saint-Gelais, Jean de (bishop of Uzès), 572 Saint-Gelais, Mellin de, 450n5, 644, 685 Saint-Germain-des-Prés (abbey), 119, 121, 126, 130, 154n7, 163, 170 Saint-Germain-en-Laye, 113, 582–587, 597–599, 603, 604 Saint-Just, near Lyon, 325, 30, 591, 594 Saint-Maixent, 630 Saint-Malo (bishopric), 168 Saint-Marc (Saint-Médard) in Soissons, 357 Saint-Marcoul, shrine of, 104 Saint-Père-en-Val (convent), 105 Saint-Pouçain (Allier), 635 saints, cult/veneration of, 77, 109, 141, 231–233, 651, 653, 655, 660, 720, 722; evangelicals’ criticism of, 21, 54, 66, 117, 135–137, 199, 244, 261, 264, 290–295, 297, 310, 413–414, 423, 483, 521, 530–532, 568; iconoclasm against, 258–259, 305, 363n147, 394, 400, 404, 413, 416, 606. See also under saint’s first name Salel, Hugues, 450n5, 644, 694 Saliat, Pierre, 644, 682, 703 Salic law, 86 Salmon, Jean (dit Macrin, 1490–1557), 72, 391n30, 455, 468n28, 483n62, 644–646, 663, 667, 678, 684, 686, 691, 706, 707, 710–712 Salomon, Jean (dit Florimond), 455, 463, 493, 644, 654, 664, 674, 695, 701, 705 San Celoni, 595 sanctification, 538 Sannazaro, Jacopo, 131 Saragossa, 594 Sarlat (bishopric), 361 Satan. See Devil, the Saulnier, Adam, 698, 700 Saulnier, Antoine, 266, 450n5, 644, 667, 671, 686, 687, 691 Saulnier, Matthieu, 282, 362, 644, 717

Saulnier, V. L., 48n25, 73n81, 90n17, 111n79, 161n2, 192n37, 198n58, 575, 576 Savetier, Nicolas, 666 Savoie, Honorat de, comte de Villars, 634, 635 Savoie, Philiberte de, madame de Nemours, 62n57, 97, 165n11, 188, 228, 229, 328, 579, 583, 584, 589 Savoy, duke of. See Charles II (duke of Savoy) Savoy (duchy), 258 Savtier, Nicolas, 666 Scaliger, Jules Caesar, 77, 78, 450n5 Scève, Maurice, 450n5, 644, 594 Schabler, Johann, 283, 655 Schabler-Resch publishing house, 278 Schlettstadt, 649 Schmalkaldic League, 43, 61, 317, 377, 380, 381n5, 436n158, 437, 445, 498, 500, 502–504, 506, 511–513, 558, 608. See also individual princes and cities Schmidt, Charles, 72n77, 152, 311, 345, 535, 546n122, 547, 566 Schott, Johann, 657, 720, 721 Schuch, Wolfgang, 279, 644, 659 Schürer, Lazarus, 649 Schweiss, Alexander, 139 Sconlu, Jean Mentcel de, 678 Scoto, Ottaviano, 678 Scripture. See Bible Sébiville, Pierre de, 644, 654; Coct converts, 256; and evangelicals of Grenoble, Lyon, and Dauphiné, 81, 258, 259, 260, 305, 306; his evangelical preaching, 21, 260–264, 361; Marguerite supports his preaching, 21, 325; praises Marguerite, 312n164; and Zwingli, 257–258 Secerius, Johannes, 660, 665 Sées, 106; canons of, 166; episcopal court and procureur, 393, 394, 408–410, 412 Selve, Georges de (bishop of Lavaur, 1526–1541), 556 Selve, Jean de (abbot of Turpenay), 357, 608 Selve, Jean de (president of the Parlement of Paris), 280, 320n17, 335, 336, 357, 608 Semblançay, Jacques de Beaune, baron de, 192n35, 203n68, 246, 661 Senant, Olivier, 645 Senlis, 211–213. See also Calveau, Jean; Fillon, Artus; Petit, Guillaume Sergent, Pierre, 483, 681, 683

index Serlio, Sebastiano, 616, 619 Serrnat, monsieur de, 625 Sertenas, Vincent, 681, 688, 696, 714 Seymour, Anne, Jane, and Margaret, 446, 452, 644, 713, 714 Seyssel, Claude de (bishop of Turin), 130n44, 131, 132, 154, 156, 158, 453, 644, 662, 669, 672, 680 Sforza, Francesco (duke of Milan, 1495–1535), 347 Sickingen, Franz von, 276 Siderander, Pierre, 425, 427n129, 428n132 Silly, Jacques de (bishop of Sées, 1511–1539), 74n84, 238, 393, 394n42, 399n52, 404, 410–412 Sisteron, Lenten preaching at, 265, 267n47 Sleidan, Johannes, 51n29, 53, 72, 436, 506, 622, 644, 697, 700, 713 Soissons, 352, 357 Society of Jesus (Jesuits), 152, 416, 468n27, 515 Sons of Apollo (Enfans d’Apollo), definition of, 447–449; table of member authors and their writings, 451–457; piety, doctrines, and reforming role, 457–495. See also individual poets Sorbonne. See University of Paris: Faculty of Theology Spagnuoli, Battista, 227n135, 483n62, 652 Spain, 58, 98n39, 253, 316n2, 331, 332, 335, 338, 340–343, 345, 351, 352, 382, 399, 593, 613, 627 Spalatin, Georg, 256, 262n29, 604, 715 Spiritual Libertines, 30, 35, 83, 161, 418, 440n166, 441, 550–552, 557n143, 568 Sponde, Jean de, 528 Standonck, Jean, 104, 105, 130, 131, 154–158, 160 Steelius, Jean, 685, 686, 698 Strasbourg, 542, 594, 598, 608, 609, 647, 650, 654, 657, 659, 661, 672, 687, 690, 695, 697, 708, 720, 721; early French evangelical center of operations, 256, 257, 277, 278; as printing center for French books, 27, 277–280, 284; Fabrists’ refuge, 22, 73–74, 304, 341–345, 348; Marguerite and, 46, 82–83, 351; French refugee church,

793

30, 76, 350; Calvin in, 44, 555–557; Pocquet in, 83, 557n143 Strasbourg (city council), 608 Sturm, Johann: as operative in Du Bellay diplomatic corps, 72, 436–438, 505–510, 555; reports on situation of evangelicals in France, 72, 344–345, 379–380, 418n105, 420, 425, 428, 435–438; opinion on Marguerite’s major role in French Reformation, 567–568, 573 Süleyman I (The Grand Turk), 233n152, 317, 483, 504, 604 Tarascon, 612 Tauro, Claude de, 81, 255, 256, 259, 262n29 Ten Commandments, 68, 161, 287, 369, 479, 493, 520, 523, 529, 652 Theodoret of Cyrus, 644, 709 Thiboust, Jacques, 644, 718 Thibout, Guillaume, 711 Thomas à Kempis, 644, 709 Thomas Aquinas, Saint, 134, 156 Thomas More, Saint, 457, 644, 693, 712 Tomeo, Nicolò, 452, 456, 644, 701 Tory, Geoffroy, 661, 669, 670 Toulouse, 597, 607, 636, 668, 679, 706, 718; evangelicals in, 25, 81, 151, 386–391, 415–416; persecution of evangelicals, 36, 386–391, 452, 493; Marguerite’s relations with evangelicals there, 78, 386–391, 515; Rabelais mocks city, 463; Carmelites, 105; Dominicans, 597 Tournes, Jean de, 81, 631, 695, 697–705, 708, 709 Tournon, Mlle de, 94n31 Tournon, François de (cardinal archbishop of Embrun), 23, 51, 70, 72, 250n2, 283n96, 335, 362, 430, 458n27, 504, 505, 576, 593, 628, 635 Tournon, 608, 609 Tours, Pierre de, 694, 686, 710, 711 Toussain, Pierre, 56n4, 82; correspondence as source, 50; believes religious renewal at hand, 251n3, opinion of Marguerite, 56n42, 312n164; reports on evangelicals in France, 46, 312n165, 348–35; protected by Anne d’Etragues, 62n57, 71, 344; on Roussel’s offer to Farel, 353; rejects

794

index

position offered him, 359; at Metz, 279n85, 307n155, 354 Toussaint, Jacques, 158 transubstantiation, 24, 548. See also Eucharist Treaty of Cambrai (1529), 375 Treaty of Crépy (1544), 254, 504 Treaty of Madrid, 253, 317, 332, 346, 600 Treaty of the More (1525), 317 Trechsel, Gaspar and Melchior, 616, 684, 685, 689 Treset, Claude, 711 Trivulzio, Augustino, 604 Troyes, 352, 659, 702; episcopal statues, 212. See also Petit, Guillaume Turin, 68, 617; false address by printers, 655, 670 Turk, The Grand. See Süleyman I Tusson, 633 University of Basel, 76, 722 University of Bourges, 75, 76, 100, 360, 390, 422, 554, 572 University of Nîmes, 516–519 University of Paris, 14, 19, 24, 41, 79, 105, 119, 163, 359, 379, 426, 429, 436, 523, 555; Faculty of Theology (Sorbonne), 19–24, 29, 134, 140, 272–274, 367, 372, 462, 523, 587, 588, 598, 600, 617, 618, 620, 649–651, 660, 661, 668, 700–702, 704, 710, 714, 722; Faculty of Theology as part of Conservative Party, 38, 47, 352, 418; Faculty investigations against Marguerite, her network, and other heretics, 39, 41, 63, 72, 117–118, 142–146, 179, 185, 189–190, 199, 215–240, 261–265, 352, 357–359, 404, 420–428, 438, 462, 521, 535; Faculty of Medicine, 607, 610; College of Harcourt, 212; College of Cardinal Lemoine, 116, 120, 257, 299; College of Montaigue, 104, 155; College of Navarre, 29, 426, 428; College of Sorbonne, 428n132 University of Toulouse, 78, 463 University of Tübingen, 549 Valderum, J., 691 Valence, 77, 348, 572, 573n11 Valla, Giorgio, 644, 650 Valla, Lorenzo, 124n25, 371, 644, 665

Vallambert, Simon, 451, 644, 704 Valois, house of, 58 Valois, duchy of, 57 Valois trinity. See Royal Trinity Vascosan, Michel, 671, 708, 710, 714 Vatable, François, 20, 75n82, 120, 175n70, 183n7, 187n15, 217n104, 311n163, 343 Vaugris, Jean, 341, 352, 450n5 Vauville, Richard, 76 Vauzelles, Jean de, 266, 359n127, 453, 458, 595, 601, 616, 658, 668, 685, 689, 692, 694, 696, 706, 708 Vauzelles, Macé de, 450n5, 684 Vauzelles, Mathieu de, 450n5, 684 Vegio, Maffeo, 668 Veissière, Michel, 152, 154n8, 156n14, 157n36, 163n32, 165n37, 182n37, 182n5, 189n22, 198n58, 206n75, 209n85, 213n93, 267n48, 294n121, 534n88, 576 Venice, 158, 159, 316, 342n80, 247, 348, 604, 605, 615, 616, 618, 619, 671, 672 Venyzolo, 592 Vérard, Vve. Antoine, 662 Verard, Nicolas, 144n82 Vergerio, Pier Paulo (cardinal), 84, 615, 618, 713 Verjus, André, 166, 226n138, 265, 266, 320n17 Versoris, Nicolas, 52, 223n118, 327n32 Vidoue, Pierre, 232, 233, 648–651, 654, 656, 659, 669, 691, 692, 722 Vienne, Philibert de, 644, 696, 699 Villiers, Gilbert de, 595, 658 Villotte, A., 707 Vincennes, 607 Vingle, Pierre de, 28, 280n89, 281, 283, 353n110, 464, 664, 666–669, 671–674, 676, 677, 679, 716, 719 Viret, Pierre, 28, 50, 353n110, 549, 553, 560, 561, 624, 670, 679, 694, 698, 705, 710, 718; anti-Nicodemite works, 552, 553, 701 Visagier, Jean, 391n30, 455, 458, 460n11, 468n28, 477n48, 494n99, 644, 681, 684, 686 Vissenaken, Guillaume, 706 Vitrier, Jean, 644, 692, 694 Vivian, Jaques, 650 Volusene, Florence, 420–425 Voragine, Jacobus de, 136, 156

index Voré, Barnabé de, seigneur de La Fosse, 72, 429, 436, 620 vows, monastic, 76, 488 Wain, Gervais, 72, 373n183, 436 Waldensians, 259n22, 383n7, 391, 392, 416, 718; of Mérindol, 78, 92 Wanegffelen, Thierry, 9n19, 534, 545–548 Warnet, Thomas, 655 Wars of Religion, 4; French, 15, 32, 54, 61, 213, 215n96, 383n7, 419, 424, 447, 495, 563, 566, 571 Wechel, Chrestien, 369, 662, 665, 667, 677, 704, 707 Windesheim, canons, 131 Winter, Robert, 712 Wirsung, M., 650 Wittenberg, 76, 110, 139, 143, 151n2, 216, 255–257, 262n29, 276, 289n109, 377, 475, 615, 721 Wolff, Thomas, 671

795

Wollick, Nicolaus, 231n151, 232, 652, 657, 660 Wolmar, Melchior, 75, 233n120, 360 Wolsey, Thomas (cardinal), 316n2, 317, 322, 323, 598 works of satisfaction, 110 Würtemberg, Ulrich of (duke), 282, 644, 716, 722 Yerres (convent), 105, 107 York, 622 Zébédée, André, 561 Zurich, 116, 136, 137, 653, 658, 681, 717, 720, 722; as base of operations for French evangelicals, 256–258, 260, 264, 377 Zwingli, Ulrich, 25, 27, 51, 80, 81, 136, 137, 139, 140, 143, 255n10, 257, 259, 269, 272, 273, 277, 311, 312, 361, 375–377, 384, 417, 556, 644, 653, 658, 676, 681, 689, 717, 720

STUDIES IN MEDIEVAL AND REFORMATION TRADITIONS (Formerly Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought) Edited by Andrew Colin Gow Founded by Heiko A. Oberman†

21. COURTENAY, W.J. Adam Wodeham. 1978 22. BRADY, Jr., Th.A. Ruling Class, Regime and Reformation at Strasbourg, 1520-1555. 1978 23. KLAASSEN, W. Michael Gaismair. 1978 24. BERNSTEIN, A.E. Pierre d’Ailly and the Blanchard Affair. 1978 25. BUCER, M. Correspondance. Tome I (Jusqu’en 1524). Publié par J. Rott. 1979 26. POSTHUMUS MEYJES, G.H.M. Jean Gerson et l’Assemblée de Vincennes (1329). 1978 27. VIVES, J.L. In Pseudodialecticos. Ed. by Ch. Fantazzi. 1979 28. BORNERT, R. La Réforme Protestante du Culte à Strasbourg au XVIe siècle (15231598). 1981 29. CASTELLIO, S. De Arte Dubitandi. Ed. by E. Feist Hirsch. 1981 30. BUCER, M. Opera Latina. Vol I. Publié par C. Augustijn, P. Fraenkel, M. Lienhard. 1982 31. BÜSSER, F. Wurzeln der Reformation in Zürich. 1985 out of print 32. FARGE, J.K. Orthodoxy and Reform in Early Reformation France. 1985 33. 34. BUCER, M. Etudes sur les relations de Bucer avec les Pays-Bas. I. Etudes; II. Documents. Par J.V. Pollet. 1985 35. HELLER, H. The Conquest of Poverty. The Calvinist Revolt in Sixteenth Century France. 1986 36. MEERHOFF, K. Rhétorique et poétique au XVIe siècle en France. 1986 37. GERRITS, G. H. Inter timorem et spem. Gerard Zerbolt of Zutphen. 1986 38. POLIZIANO, A. Lamia. Ed. by A. Wesseling. 1986 39. BRAW, C. Bücher im Staube. Die Theologie Johann Arndts in ihrem Verhältnis zur Mystik. 1986 40. BUCER, M. Opera Latina. Vol. II. Enarratio in Evangelion Iohannis (1528, 1530, 1536). Publié par I. Backus. 1988 41. BUCER, M. Opera Latina. Vol. III. Martin Bucer and Matthew Parker: Florilegium Patristicum. Edition critique. Publié par P. Fraenkel. 1988 42. BUCER, M. Opera Latina. Vol. IV. Consilium Theologicum Privatim Conscriptum. Publié par P. Fraenkel. 1988 43. BUCER, M. Correspondance. Tome II (1524-1526). Publié par J. Rott. 1989 44. RASMUSSEN, T. Inimici Ecclesiae. Das ekklesiologische Feindbild in Luthers “Dictata super Psalterium” (1513-1515) im Horizont der theologischen Tradition. 1989 45. POLLET, J. Julius Pflug et la crise religieuse dans l’Allemagne du XVIe siècle. Essai de synthèse biographique et théologique. 1990 46. BUBENHEIMER, U. Thomas Müntzer. Herkunft und Bildung. 1989 47. BAUMAN, C. The Spiritual Legacy of Hans Denck. Interpretation and Translation of Key Texts. 1991 48. OBERMAN, H.A. and JAMES, F.A., III (eds.). in cooperation with SAAK, E.L. Via Augustini. Augustine in the Later Middle Ages, Renaissance and Reformation: Essays in Honor of Damasus Trapp. 1991 out of print 49. SEIDEL MENCHI, S. Erasmus als Ketzer. Reformation und Inquisition im Italien des 16. Jahrhunderts. 1993 50. SCHILLING, H. Religion, Political Culture, and the Emergence of Early Modern Society. Essays in German and Dutch History. 1992 51. DYKEMA, P.A. and OBERMAN, H.A. (eds.). Anticlericalism in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe. 2nd ed. 1994

52. 53. KRIEGER, Chr. and LIENHARD, M. (eds.). Martin Bucer and Sixteenth Century Europe. Actes du colloque de Strasbourg (28-31 août 1991). 1993 54. SCREECH, M.A. Clément Marot: A Renaissance Poet discovers the World. Lutheranism, Fabrism and Calvinism in the Royal Courts of France and of Navarre and in the Ducal Court of Ferrara. 1994 55. GOW, A.C. The Red Jews: Antisemitism in an Apocalyptic Age, 1200-1600. 1995 56. BUCER, M. Correspondance. Tome III (1527-1529). Publié par Chr. Krieger et J. Rott. 1989 57. SPIJKER, W. VAN ’T. The Ecclesiastical Offices in the Thought of Martin Bucer. Translated by J. Vriend (text) and L.D. Bierma (notes). 1996 58. GRAHAM, M.F. The Uses of Reform. ‘Godly Discipline’ and Popular Behavior in Scotland and Beyond, 1560-1610. 1996 59. AUGUSTIJN, C. Erasmus. Der Humanist als Theologe und Kirchenreformer. 1996 60. MCCOOG S J, T.M. The Society of Jesus in Ireland, Scotland, and England 1541-1588. ‘Our Way of Proceeding?’ 1996 61. FISCHER, N. und KOBELT-GROCH, M. (Hrsg.). Außenseiter zwischen Mittelalter und Neuzeit. Festschrift für Hans-Jürgen Goertz zum 60. Geburtstag. 1997 62. NIEDEN, M. Organum Deitatis. Die Christologie des Thomas de Vio Cajetan. 1997 63. BAST, R.J. Honor Your Fathers. Catechisms and the Emergence of a Patriarchal Ideology in Germany, 1400-1600. 1997 64. ROBBINS, K.C. City on the Ocean Sea: La Rochelle, 1530-1650. Urban Society, Religion, and Politics on the French Atlantic Frontier. 1997 65. BLICKLE, P. From the Communal Reformation to the Revolution of the Common Man. 1998 66. FELMBERG, B.A.R. Die Ablaßtheorie Kardinal Cajetans (1469-1534). 1998 67. CUNEO, P.F. Art and Politics in Early Modern Germany. Jörg Breu the Elder and the Fashioning of Political Identity, ca. 1475-1536. 1998 68. BRADY, Jr., Th.A. Communities, Politics, and Reformation in Early Modern Europe. 1998 69. McKEE, E.A. The Writings of Katharina Schütz Zell. 1. The Life and Thought of a Sixteenth-Century Reformer. 2. A Critical Edition. 1998 70. BOSTICK, C.V. The Antichrist and the Lollards. Apocalyticism in Late Medieval and Reformation England. 1998 71. BOYLE, M. O’ROURKE. Senses of Touch. Human Dignity and Deformity from Michelangelo to Calvin. 1998 72. TYLER, J.J. Lord of the Sacred City. The Episcopus Exclusus in Late Medieval and Early Modern Germany. 1999 74. WITT, R.G. ‘In the Footsteps of the Ancients’. The Origins of Humanism from Lovato to Bruni. 2000 77. TAYLOR, L.J. Heresy and Orthodoxy in Sixteenth-Century Paris. François le Picart and the Beginnings of the Catholic Reformation. 1999 78. BUCER, M. Briefwechsel/Correspondance. Band IV (Januar-September 1530). Herausgegeben und bearbeitet von R. Friedrich, B. Hamm und A. Puchta. 2000 79. MANETSCH, S.M. Theodore Beza and the Quest for Peace in France, 1572-1598. 2000 80. GODMAN, P. The Saint as Censor. Robert Bellarmine between Inquisition and Index. 2000 81. SCRIBNER, R.W. Religion and Culture in Germany (1400-1800). Ed. L. Roper. 2001 82. KOOI, C. Liberty and Religion. Church and State in Leiden’s Reformation, 1572-1620. 2000 83. BUCER, M. Opera Latina. Vol. V. Defensio adversus axioma catholicum id est criminationem R.P. Roberti Episcopi Abrincensis (1534). Ed. W.I.P. Hazlett. 2000 84. BOER, W. DE. The Conquest of the Soul. Confession, Discipline, and Public Order in Counter-Reformation Milan. 2001 85. EHRSTINE, G. Theater, culture, and community in Reformation Bern, 1523-1555. 2001

86. CATTERALL, D. Community Without Borders. Scot Migrants and the Changing Face of Power in the Dutch Republic, c. 1600-1700. 2002 87. BOWD, S.D. Reform Before the Reformation. Vincenzo Querini and the Religious Renaissance in Italy. 2002 88. PELC, M. Illustrium Imagines. Das Porträtbuch der Renaissance. 2002 89. SAAK, E.L. High Way to Heaven. The Augustinian Platform between Reform and Reformation, 1292-1524. 2002 90. WITTNEBEN, E.L. Bonagratia von Bergamo, Franziskanerjurist und Wortführer seines Ordens im Streit mit Papst Johannes XXII. 2003 91. ZIKA, C. Exorcising our Demons, Magic, Witchcraft and Visual Culture in Early Modern Europe. 2002 92. MATTOX, M.L. “Defender of the Most Holy Matriarchs”, Martin Luther’s Interpretation of the Women of Genesis in the Enarrationes in Genesin, 1535-45. 2003 93. LANGHOLM, O. The Merchant in the Confessional, Trade and Price in the PreReformation Penitential Handbooks. 2003 94. BACKUS, I. Historical Method and Confessional Identity in the Era of the Reformation (1378-1615). 2003 95. FOGGIE, J.P. Renaissance Religion in Urban Scotland. The Dominican Order, 14501560. 2003 96. LÖWE, J.A. Richard Smyth and the Language of Orthodoxy. Re-imagining Tudor Catholic Polemicism. 2003 97. HERWAARDEN, J. VAN. Between Saint James and Erasmus. Studies in Late-Medieval Religious Life: Devotion and Pilgrimage in The Netherlands. 2003 98. PETRY, Y. Gender, Kabbalah and the Reformation. The Mystical Theology of Guillaume Postel (1510–1581). 2004 99. EISERMANN, F., SCHLOTHEUBER, E. und HONEMANN, V. Studien und Texte zur literarischen und materiellen Kultur der Frauenklöster im späten Mittelalter. Ergebnisse eines Arbeitsgesprächs in der Herzog August Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel, 24.-26. Febr. 1999. 2004 100. WITCOMBE, C.L.C.E. Copyright in the Renaissance. Prints and the Privilegio in Sixteenth-Century Venice and Rome. 2004 101. BUCER, M. Briefwechsel/Correspondance. Band V (September 1530-Mai 1531). Herausgegeben und bearbeitet von R. Friedrich, B. Hamm, A. Puchta und R. Liebenberg. 2004 102. MALONE, C.M. Façade as Spectacle: Ritual and Ideology at Wells Cathedral. 2004 103. KAUFHOLD, M. (ed.) Politische Reflexion in der Welt des späten Mittelalters / Political Thought in the Age of Scholasticism. Essays in Honour of Jürgen Miethke. 2004 104. BLICK, S. and TEKIPPE, R. (eds.). Art and Architecture of Late Medieval Pilgrimage in Northern Europe and the British Isles. 2004 105. PASCOE, L.B., S.J. Church and Reform. Bishops, Theologians, and Canon Lawyers in the Thought of Pierre d’Ailly (1351-1420). 2005 106. SCOTT, T. Town, Country, and Regions in Reformation Germany. 2005 107. GROSJEAN, A.N.L. and MURDOCH, S. (eds.). Scottish Communities Abroad in the Early Modern Period. 2005 108. POSSET, F. Renaissance Monks. Monastic Humanism in Six Biographical Sketches. 2005 109. IHALAINEN, P. Protestant Nations Redefined. Changing Perceptions of National Identity in the Rhetoric of the English, Dutch and Swedish Public Churches, 1685-1772. 2005 110. FURDELL, E. (ed.) Textual Healing: Essays on Medieval and Early Modern Medicine. 2005 111. ESTES, J.M. Peace, Order and the Glory of God. Secular Authority and the Church in the Thought of Luther and Melanchthon, 1518-1559. 2005 112. MÄKINEN, V. (ed.) Lutheran Reformation and the Law. 2006 113. STILLMAN, R.E. (ed.) Spectacle and Public Performance in the Late Middle Ages and the Renaissance. 2006 114. OCKER, C. Church Robbers and Reformers in Germany, 1525-1547. Confiscation and Religious Purpose in the Holy Roman Empire. 2006

115. ROECK, B. Civic Culture and Everyday Life in Early Modern Germany. 2006 116. BLACK, C. Pico’s Heptaplus and Biblical Hermeneutics. 2006 117. BLA´EK, P. Die mittelalterliche Rezeption der aristotelischen Philosophie der Ehe. Von Robert Grosseteste bis Bartholomäus von Brügge (1246/1247-1309). 2007 118. AUDISIO, G. Preachers by Night. The Waldensian Barbes (15th-16th Centuries). 2007 119. SPRUYT, B.J. Cornelius Henrici Hoen (Honius) and his Epistle on the Eucharist (1525). 2006 120. BUCER, M. Briefwechsel/Correspondance. Band VI (Mai-Oktober 1531). Herausgegeben und bearbeitet von R. Friedrich, B. Hamm, W. Simon und M. Arnold. 2006 121. POLLMANN, J. and SPICER, A. (eds.). Public Opinion and Changing Identities in the Early Modern Netherlands. Essays in Honour of Alastair Duke. 2007 122. BECKER, J. Gemeindeordnung und Kirchenzucht. Johannes a Lascos Kirchenordnung für London (1555) und die reformierte Konfessionsbildung. 2007 123. NEWHAUSER, R. (ed.) The Seven Deadly Sins. From Communities to Individuals. 2007 124. DURRANT, J.B. Witchcraft, Gender and Society in Early Modern Germany. 2007 125. ZAMBELLI, P. White Magic, Black Magic in the European Renaissance. From Ficino and Della Porta to Trithemius, Agrippa, Bruno. 2007 126. SCHMIDT, A. Vaterlandsliebe und Religionskonflikt. Politische Diskurse im Alten Reich (1555-1648). 2007 127. OCKER, C., PRINTY, M., STARENKO, P. and WALLACE, P. (eds.). Politics and Reformations: Histories and Reformations. Essays in Honor of Thomas A. Brady, Jr. 2007 128. OCKER, C., PRINTY, M., STARENKO, P. and WALLACE, P. (eds.). Politics and Reformations: Communities, Polities, Nations, and Empires. Essays in Honor of Thomas A. Brady, Jr. 2007 129. BROWN, S. Women, Gender and Radical Religion in Early Modern Europe. 2007 130. VAINIO, O.-P. Justification and Participation in Christ. The Development of the Lutheran Doctrine of Justification from Luther to the Formula of Concord (1580). 2008 131. NEWTON, J. and BATH , J. (eds.). Witchcraft and the Act of 1604. 2008 132. TWOMEY, L.K. The Serpent and the Rose: The Immaculate Conception and Hispanic Poetry in the Late Medieval Period. 2008 133. SHANTZ, D. Between Sardis and Philadelphia. The Life and World of Pietist Court Preacher Conrad Bröske. 2008 134. SYROS, V. Die Rezeption der aristotelischen politischen Philosophie bei Marsilius von Padua. Eine Untersuchung zur ersten Diktion des Defensor pacis. 2008 135. GENT, J. VAN. Magic, Body and the Self in Eighteenth-Century Sweden. 2008 136. BUCER, M. Briefwechsel/Correspondance. Band VII (Oktober 1531-März 1532). Herausgegeben und bearbeitet von B. Hamm, R. Friedrich, W. Simon. In Zusammenarbeit mit M. Arnold. 2008 137. ESPINOSA, A. The Empire of the Cities. Emperor Charles V, the Comunero Revolt, and the Transformation of the Spanish System. 2009 138. CRAIG, L.A. Wandering Women and Holy Matrons. Women as Pilgrims in the Later Middle Ages. 2009 139. REID, J.A. King’s Sister – Queen of Dissent. Marguerite of Navarre (1492-1549) and her Evangelical Network. 2009 140. BRUMMETT, P. (ed.). The ‘Book’ of Travels: Genre, Ethnology, and Pilgrimage, 12501700. 2009 141. INGRAM, K. (ed.). The Conversos and Moriscos in Late Medieval Spain and Beyond. Volume One: Departures and Change. 2009 142. MACDONALD, A.A., VON MARTELS, Z.R.W.M. and VEENSTRA, J.R. (eds.). Christian Humanism. Essays in Honour of Arjo Vanderjagt. 2009 143. KEUL, I. Early Modern Religious Communities in East-Central Europe. Ethnic Diversity, Denominational Plurality, and Corporative Politics in the Principality of Transylvania (1526-1691). 2009 144. BAUMANN, D. Stephen Langton: Erzbischof von Canterbury im England der Magna Carta (1207-1228). 2009